Draft Disability Discrimination Bill: Timetable

Lord Ashley of Stoke: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their proposed timescale for the draft Disability Discrimination Bill.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the draft Discrimination Disability Bill will undergo pre-legislative scrutiny. We expect the committee to report at the end of April and that we shall publish our response in the summer. The legislative programme for the next Session of Parliament will be announced in the usual way.

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that practically all of the major disability organisations have given a very warm welcome to the Bill because of its important provisions and that practically all of these organisations are concerned that there may be an undue delay because it is only a draft Bill? In view of the fact that we have had consultations for more than four years with disabled people, business, trade unions and the public sector, will the Government try to expedite the enactment of the Bill so that disabled people can soon get the extra protection against discrimination that the Bill will afford?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it is our intention that the Bill will be passed this Parliament, although obviously I cannot pre-empt exactly what will be in the Queen's Speech.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, while the draft Bill is welcome, there is widespread concern that it has not been introduced as a substantive Bill at this stage? The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said that there have been years of widespread consultation and a general consensus seems to have been reached. Will she tell us which particular aspects of the Bill made it necessary to send it to a Joint Committee? Are we to understand from what she has just said that the substantive Bill will not be introduced in this Session and that instead we shall have procrastination in the Joint Committee?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I would not use words such as procrastination; that is quite inappropriate. There are procedures, including roll-over, which are available to the usual channels, if that is what they want to pursue. To go back to the substance of the noble Lord's question, Bert Massie, who is the chair of the Disability Rights Commission, said this month:
	"The pre-legislative scrutiny process offers to engage a wide range of stakeholders in understanding the current law and benefits of the proposed changes as well as to explore ways in which the Bill might be further strengthened to the benefit of disabled people".
	I think that answers the noble Lord.

Lord Addington: My Lords, will the Minister give us some indication of the Government's thinking about the implementation of any final Bill? One of the problems with the original legislation was that it took so long to be implemented that it went from being a long-term project, to a medium-term project, to a panic. Can we make sure that there will be better planning over time for the final implementation of the Bill?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, my Lords. That is again where we would expect the support of the scrutiny committee. I am sure your Lordships are aware of the membership of that body. It includes, for example, from your Lordships' House—it will be on the Order Paper tomorrow—the noble Lords, Lord Addington, Lord Carter, Lord Rix, Lord Swinfen and Lord Tebbit, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins. Given that degree of strength on the Scrutiny Committee—I do not know about your Lordships but the committee certainly terrifies me—I am confident that they will not allow any such delay or hesitation in implementation as the noble Lord suggests.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, for how long do the Government expect the Bill to remain a draft? Are the Government already receiving proposed amendments and additions?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thought that I had attempted to answer that. I clearly did not. This is a draft scrutiny Bill. The committee will be receiving the evidence and reporting to the Government by the end of April. It is our intention that a Bill will be introduced into Parliament and completed before this Parliament ends. We are on track to meet our manifesto commitments in that respect.

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I, too, most warmly welcome the Government's enormous progress in this field and congratulate my noble friend and her ministerial colleagues, more especially, of course, Maria Eagle, as Minister for disabled people. But can my noble friend say whether the draft Bill will be available in all the different formats necessary to make it accessible to blind people and others in need of them?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, my Lords. My noble friend is right, it is important that, if one is having a draft scrutiny process, all possible stakeholders are aware of the issues involved. As a result, the Bill is already available in Braille, it is on the DWP's website and by the end of the week there will be an easy-reading version for people with learning difficulties. I have a draft with me. It has cartoons and so on and may be of particular appeal to your Lordships. Also, and more interestingly, if I may say so, by the end of the month we expect to have a video available in British Sign Language. All of the obvious formats are covered in ways that probably have not been done before in legislation.

Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, as much as the Bill is enabling in nature, will my noble friend give an assurance that the draft regulations will be made available at the earliest opportunity so that the Joint Committee can give proper scrutiny to the Bill?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my understanding is that the regulations will not be ready in draft form while the committee is sitting but that the officials intend to submit an explanatory memorandum describing the import of the regulations which I trust will be of value to the committee.

Baroness Greengross: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the definition of disability could be improved to include people with mental health problems who currently have a lot of problems and suffer a great deal of discrimination in getting benefits and claiming protection under the DDA?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, my Lords. The definition of disability, as opposed to sickness, is that it is long-standing and has an adverse effect on daily life. It tends to mean, for example, that if somebody has severe mental health problems, they would normally have lasted perhaps 12 months or be of a recurring nature. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that it is one of the biggest growth areas, if I can use that phrase. Of the increasing numbers of people claiming disability benefit, nearly one-third have mental health problems and learning difficulties. They are people who find it extremely difficult to re-enter work, whereas people with what would appear to be more severe disabilities, such as blindness or deafness, actually manage to re-enter the labour market more effectively. I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, that it is a very difficult area. I certainly compliment the Schizophrenia Fellowship and the Richmond Fellowship on the work that they do in trying to help people with severe mental health problems to build their confidence and re-enter the labour market. As I say, this is an extremely difficult area.

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I am glad to hear what the Minister said about including cartoons for those who have difficulty reading. Is she aware that 10 per cent of the population have dyslexia? Is the Bill written in accordance with the recommendations of the Dyslexia Association whereby the correct fonts, the correct spacing and the correct colour of paper are used? Has she followed those recommendations?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my understanding is that that has been done regarding font size and so on. However, I shall check on the point about colour as that also affects people with red/green colour blindness, not just dyslexics.

Westminster Elections: Voting System

Lord Greaves: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they intend to carry out a review of the voting system for Westminster elections following the European elections next June, to be co-ordinated by the Department for Constitutional Affairs.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, no decision has yet been made on the timing and structure of the review.

Lord Lipsey: My Lords—

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I have prepared two supplementary questions, one in the event that the Answer was yes and one in the event that it was no. However, I am not sure which Answer I have been given except that the Minister responding to the Question is not the constitutional affairs Minister. Will the Minister confirm the report in the Independent of 23 December last year that states:
	"SECRET TALKS between the Government and the Liberal Democrats over reforming the voting system have begun in a move which could see the abolition of the first-past-the-post method"?
	I am not asking about the last part of that quotation but about the first part. The article continues:
	"The review is expected to be co-ordinated by the [wrong] Department",
	but nevertheless we now know which department it will be. Will the Minister confirm that a promise of such a review was to be found in the Labour manifesto at the previous general election? Will he also confirm that his reply meant that such a review is to take place but the Government have not yet decided when and how?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the 2001 manifesto clearly set out our commitment to review the experience of the new systems and the Jenkins report to assess whether changes might be made to the actual system of elections to the House of Commons. As to the report in the Independent, which I read with interest as one always does with newspaper reports, I think that the noble Lord is much better placed than I am to check with Charles Kennedy whether he considers that to have been an accurate newspaper report.

Lord Renton: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that what are referred to in the Question as "Westminster elections" are elections to the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom, and that it is important that the government of the day should have the choice of the timing of those elections within five years rather than that choice becoming subject to any kind of European influence?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, on the first point, the Question is, indeed, about the electoral system to the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom, more specifically to the House of Commons. On the second point, there is no focus to my knowledge of this being about any European regulation or directive.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, in considering the review, will my noble friend give particular attention to the Westminster voting system in Northern Ireland where the situation is rather different from the rest of the United Kingdom, where there is a different voting system for European elections anyway and where a fairer result might be achieved by a change in the system?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am well aware that in Northern Ireland for all elections apart from elections to the House of Commons STV is the electoral system that is used. One knows well the history and reasons for that having been introduced in the Province. No doubt that is one of the issues that would be on the list for consideration when a review is carried out.

Lord Henley: My Lords, has the Minister made any assessment of the impact of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999 which brought in closed lists and which was valiantly opposed by my late noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, as the noble Lord will remember? Has he made any assessment of the impact of that on all elections and on voter turnout in those elections?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I think the likelihood of there being an impact from the closed list system regarding European elections on other electoral systems is fairly remote. As to the impact of closed list systems on turnout, voter confidence or any of the other criteria that one might wish to inspect as part of an assessment of how a different form of PR is operating, it is a little too early to judge. We shall be best placed to do so post-June 2004 when we shall then have seen two rounds of European elections on a proportionate basis. No doubt the academics and others will inspect those results with considerable interest as a consequence.

Lord Lipsey: My Lords—

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the system of all-postal voting which is to be piloted in the European elections makes secrecy of the ballot far less certain. Does the Minister agree that before we go ahead with rolling out this pilot into the Westminster elections, we must have full research into possible voting abuses? Does he accept that that research must involve proper random sampling of the voters to check on possibilities of personation or pressure on electors and that the investigation must not just rely on complaints?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord's ball is out of court but in a spirit of charity I shall nevertheless respond. Clearly we see the benefit in piloting in the European elections in June the further operation of an all-postal voting system, as the House well knows. However, the noble Lord will also be well aware that the Electoral Commission has signalled some important issues for consideration, one of which he referred to, before there is an introduction of universal postal balloting in a Westminster parliamentary election.

Lord Lipsey: My Lords, will my noble friend forgive my over exuberance as chair of Make Votes Count in welcoming his confirmation that in this Parliament—unlike the previous one, I am afraid—we shall carry out our manifesto pledge to stage a review? Will he ensure that when that review is carried out it takes full account of the superb work being done by the independent commission on precisely this subject? It was set up by the Constitution Unit, under the chair of David Butler and Peter Riddell, and will help to prepare the ground for a review that is appropriately timed for after the next round of elections.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am sure that the independent review of proportional representation systems by the Constitution Unit will be extremely interesting, both to the Government and to those in politics and academic life who take an interest in electoral systems. We look forward to seeing its report in March. One should put on record the Government's remarkable achievement in bringing in proportional representation. Every single new governmental organisation introduced since 1997 has had a proportional representation system. Without being too party political, we have seen more PR systems introduced by this Government than by any other party, or combination of parties, in the past 100 years.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, if the Minister cannot tell us when the review is due to start, when will the Government decide when the review will start?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, in the immortal words of Stanley Baldwin, "wait and see".

Millennium Dome

Baroness Seccombe: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What has been the total cost to public funds of the Millennium Dome since its closure on 31st December 2000; and when it is anticipated that it will cease to require the expenditure of public money.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the New Millennium Experience Company was responsible for the Dome until June 2001 and incurred post-closure costs, met by the Lottery, of £4.3 million after deduction of income.
	English Partnerships took over in July 2001. Up to September 2003 it incurred costs, after deduction of income, of £26.6 million. English Partnerships's expenditure will reduce when construction of the new arena begins and will cease when it is completed. English Partnerships's costs will be recovered from sale proceeds.

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but I am appalled when I think how that amount of money could have been spent so usefully on, for example, schools, hospitals and other worthwhile causes. The Minister said that he expects the spending to end, but when will sums actually flow back to English Partnerships and NMEC under the Government's deal?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the final Section 106 agreement for the planning application is being put together as we speak. It is probably the most complex and large Section 106 agreement ever conducted on any planning application in the UK. The deal will become unconditional later in the spring; construction cannot start for a year, because contracts have to be bid for and completed; and then there will be the time that construction takes. Meanwhile, English Partnerships is looking after the security, the rates and insurance for the Dome. The costs incurred by English Partnerships are infinitesimal, compared to the returns in due course once the arena is constructed. The income after the Greenwich peninsular is developed will make the figures that I have given today look like seed corn.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that in the year that the Millennium Dome was open, although it should have been sited in Birmingham, it was the most well attended visitor attraction in the whole of the United Kingdom? Will he remind the House of the benefits that the Dome has left behind?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, there were 6.5 million visitors. It was the most successful visitor attraction in the country. Regarding its legacy: 300 acres of derelict land have been dealt with; currently 800 homes are complete or under construction; there is an ecology park, 50 acres of parkland, a new primary school and health centre, a small hotel and a 14 screen cinema; and £280 million of private finance has already been invested. As for what will happen when the planning application is finally agreed and put together, there will be an arena with a capacity of 26,000, 10,000 new homes—4,000 of which will be affordable—

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I apologise for falling into ODPM ministerial speak. They are all affordable but 4,000 will be for key worker accommodation. There will be a four or five-star hotel, a secondary school and community facilities, three and a half million square feet of commercial office space, significant transport infrastructure, £550 million of cash returned and 20,000 permanent jobs—including over 5,000 for Greenwich Thames Gateway. I could go on—

Noble Lords: Hear, hear.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the legacy of what will come from dealing with a site that was left derelict for many years will be massive for people in that part of London.

The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he left out one significant fact? The Millennium Dome proved to be the most wonderful venue for a recent carol service before Christmas, attended by more than 7,000 people. So it is not a totally wasted asset.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, no, it is not. One of the difficulties while income has been small is that the Dome is so large that there is a limited number of enterprises and events that can fill it. The best has been done to generate income and I am pleased to hear about that latest event.

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the problem is that the Dome has not been affordable? I thought it significant that the word "affordable" was used. We have waited for 20 months since conditional contracts were signed with developers. In particular, what is the long-stop date in the contract after which the Government can withdraw should that be necessary if the negotiations can not be concluded? In a Written Answer to me on 11 December 2003, the Minister assured me:
	"All of English Partnerships' costs in relation to the Dome will be recovered from sale proceeds".—[Official Report, 11/12/03; col. WA79.]
	We have heard that he is optimistic about that, but was that statement made with an unconditional guarantee by the developer or is it just a fond hope?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, no. I draw attention to the Answer I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, on 11 December at cols. WA78–79 of the Official Report. That remains the position. All of English Partnerships's costs in relation to the Dome, including those incurred over that year after the deal becomes unconditional, will be met and will be recovered from the substantial amounts of money received from the sale of the Dome—close on half a billion pounds, although that is £240 million at net present value.
	I have said that as we speak the Section 106 deal is being put together and the deal will become unconditional around May this year, by which time there will have been a period of three months that has to be left in case there is a judicial review, but there is no sign that that will happen. The developer then will have a year to let the contract. It is expected that the arena built inside the Dome will be open in 2007. Many of the other developments that I mentioned will be ongoing while the arena is constructed. It is not a question of one thing following another. We expect that there will be a successful outcome to the negotiations, led by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the Minister aware of how much I have enjoyed listening to his expose of Never Never Land? Have the Government ever undertaken an exercise to compare the cost and value to this country of keeping the Royal Yacht, compared with the cost and value of the Dome?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is not Never Never Land, because I invite the noble Baroness to visit the Greenwich peninsular and see what is there now—not what will be there in the future. Then she can return to this House and say that she would prefer it to remain derelict, as it was for many years. The nearest thing to Never Never Land was the recent announcement by the Conservative Party in its so-called campaign on waste regarding figures used for the Dome. They do not stack up and can not be justified by those who made the claim for what was put in Yard 10. I am not surprised that no one has had the gumption to raise that today, because they know those figures. That is the Never Never Land of the Tory Party regarding the Dome.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one item on the list of benefits that he forgot to mention was the construction of the Jubilee Line?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I mentioned transport infrastructure. There are 1,200 construction jobs at any one time during the 20-year period and the Dome may play a role if London is successful in the Olympic bid. There are one or two other little goodies that I could mention, but it would be unfair, given the time, to go over the goodies that will come from the Dome.

Offshore Financial Centres

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, in the light of recent financial scandals and evidence of tax evasion, they propose to review their relations with offshore financial centres under British sovereignty.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is important that all financial centres comply with international standards, regardless of whether they are offshore or onshore. The Government are firmly committed to seeing international standards of regulation and anti-money laundering implemented effectively throughout the world. We are equally firmly committed to encouraging the Crown dependencies and overseas territories to match international standards on exchange of information for tax purposes and on fair tax competition.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Does he accept that, on some estimates, nearly half the offshore business which goes to offshore financial centres goes to such centres under British sovereignty—both in the Crown dependencies and in the dependent territories? Therefore, it would seem to be a duty for the British Government, in particular, to consider the role of offshore financial centres in the world economy. Is he familiar with the recent report of the Public Accounts Select Committee in another House, which states:
	"Around a quarter of serious fraud cases investigated by the [Inland Revenue] involve the use of offshore accounts and structures"?
	Did the noble Lord see the report in the New York Times which stated that, of the 881 subsidiaries of Enron in offshore financial centres, 692 were in the Cayman Islands, 119 in the Turks and Caicos Islands and eight in Bermuda? Does he recall that in the Parmalat saga, both the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands played a substantial part in the disappearance of money? Is it not time that the British Government examined the costs and benefits to the world economy of those offshore financial centres, which are under our eventual control?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, to begin with, I believe it would be wise for the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, to distinguish between the Crown dependencies and overseas territories. Crown dependencies are far more limited. They have different tax regimes but we are satisfied that they comply with all the regulatory conditions that we have in this country. We are also satisfied that they have adequate protection against fraud.
	As for overseas territories and other offshore jurisdictions, this country, together with the OECD in particular, has been relentless in pursuing cases of fraud and bad regulation. I shall not comment on the Parmalat aspect of the Cayman Islands, but those islands, as an overseas territory, were on the blacklist of the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering and have been taken off because they have conformed. They have still not conformed to the savings directive but we are working very hard at that. If the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, looks at the record, he will see that we are collaborating powerfully with other OECD members in pursuit of the non-co-operative jurisdictions.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is often a fine line between tax evasion and tax avoidance, particularly in the case of offshore islands? Is it not possible to ask the Inland Revenue, the Treasury or Parliament to decide how to deal with some of the large amount of tax avoidance which is really tax evasion by another name?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was always taught that tax evasion was illegal but that tax avoidance was not. It depends on the tax jurisdiction with which one is dealing. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, I believe we should make a distinction between the offshore jurisdictions which are attractive because they have low tax regimes, which is legitimate, and those which have poorer regulation and which fail to comply with international standards of exchange of information or, indeed, of withholding tax. That is the direction in which we should target our efforts.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, turning to the financial scandals aspect of this Question, can the Minister say whether this is one of those rare occasions when the Government can throw the challenge where it should lie—that is, with the leading firms in the major financial centres? I think particularly of the City and Wall Street and the leaders of those leading firms. Is it not the case that a year ago on Wall Street an unprecedented ramp, fraud or conspiracy—call it what you will—took place, involving more than 50 of the leading merchant banks there, including all the major players in the City of London, and where the 11 malefactors were fined £1.35 billion for concerted fraud? Is it not the case that, unless these great firms show an example, frankly, laws will not do the trick?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that those who practise to deceive do, indeed, weave tangled webs. One of the tangled webs that they weave is the use of offshore havens. I believe that it would be good advice to investors in any country to look at the extent to which the companies in which they seek to invest use offshore tax havens and the extent to which they seek to complicate, and therefore to obfuscate, the nature of the financial control. I believe that that is all good advice for investors, wherever they may be.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred to tax evasion and not tax avoidance. Will the Minister say whether he believes that the Government have in place adequate measures to deal with tax evasion in these offshore centres? If he believes that they have, will he say what effect those measures have had?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we pursue tax evasion at every possible opportunity. We are frequently criticised for the complexity of the Finance Act and of our tax legislation. Much of that complexity arises from the necessity to do precisely what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said—to pursue tax evasion. We do not apologise for the complexity when it is necessary for the effective pursuit of tax evasion.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, there is concern both in Britain and in the United States about the use of offshore credit card accounts as a means of tax evasion. Are the Government paying particular attention to that and are they also collaborating with the United States on the use of Caribbean tax havens?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not familiar with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is making. However, I shall become closely involved in it as I pursue the draft Gambling Bill, which is now before a Joint Committee, because clearly offshore credit cards are a particular risk there. I take seriously the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and I shall pursue it.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the Minister put up a spirited defence of complicated tax legislation. However, that was not the question that I asked him. Will he say whether the measures that have been put in place are effective against tax evasion?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, they are generally effective, but people find ways of getting round them. The lawyers and accountants available to the private sector are paid more than the lawyers and accountants available to the Government. Sometimes they are ahead of us, but we catch up.

EU Students at British Universities: Loans

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether European Union students at British universities will enjoy the same access to student loans for the payment of fees as British students.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we are planning to abolish up-front payment of fees for full-time undergraduates from 2006. From that date, European Union students will have access to loans for payment of fees on the same basis as British students.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Can she confirm that, at any one time, approximately 10,000 students from the European Union are resident in the UK as students and that each of them would therefore be eligible in 2006 to take up a £3,000 loan? Can she tell us how the Government propose to pursue the repayment of the loans from those students?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, in answer to the noble Baroness's first question, I cannot confirm that 10,000 students from the European Union are resident in the UK because, in fact, 35,000 students—35,641 to be precise—come to our universities in order to study. However, I can tell the noble Baroness that the Student Loans Company already has in place a system to collect maintenance loan debts from those who live outside the UK. It is exploring, and continues to explore, ways of building relationships with other European states, including those which may join the European Union in the future. That system will continue to operate successfully when the changeover takes place.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I have had personal experience of the great difficulty involved in collecting money from someone who has returned overseas. Can the Minister tell me whether any system will be in place whereby a surety or a guarantee in this country will be required? Will the loans be covered under English law? What will be the jurisdiction and what action will the Government be able to take if the money is simply not forthcoming?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, there are already a number of systems available through existing international money transfer facilities offered by financial providers. International trace agencies are used by the Student Loans Company, which is used to tracing students and recovering debt. There are also issues that we can pick up through legal and commercial recovery systems, if need be. These are well established routes that have been successful.

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, will British students at European universities be able to avail themselves of these loans?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Indeed, my Lords. There are currently 6,290 UK undergraduates studying in the European Union.

Angela Cannings

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, with permission I wish to make a Statement on the case of Angela Cannings.
	Yesterday's judgment in the Court of Appeal in the appeal against conviction of Angela Cannings has serious and far-reaching implications. The judgment has demonstrated that, in relation to unexplained infant deaths, where the outcome of the trial depends exclusively, or almost exclusively, on a serious disagreement between distinguished and reputable experts, it will often be unsafe to proceed. I share the unease expressed by the Court of Appeal in relation to such convictions.
	Following similar reported comments of concern by the Court of Appeal at the conclusion of the hearing of this tragic case in December, I asked for all cases potentially involving sudden infant death syndrome to be identified as quickly as practicable. To date, some 258 convictions over the past 10 years have been identified involving the murder, manslaughter or infanticide of an infant aged under two years by its parent.
	Those cases will be considered further as a matter of urgency to establish whether any, and if so, how many, bear the hallmarks of a conviction which the Court of Appeal judgment yesterday indicated may be unsafe. I expect this process to be completed swiftly over the coming weeks. I propose that in all cases which appear to meet the criteria laid down by the Court of Appeal the convicted person will be informed of these developments as soon as possible. The possibility then will be for the case to be referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission or for the convicted person, with legal advice, to consider an appeal out of time to the Court of Appeal. The Criminal Cases Review Commission has the power under the Criminal Appeals Act 1995 to consider whether the convictions should be referred to the Court of Appeal.
	I am particularly concerned about cases where the defendant has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment which is still being served. We have so far identified 54 such cases which may involve sudden infant death syndrome. These will be accorded the highest priority.
	I have already spoken to the chairman of the Criminal Cases Review Commission and will be meeting him in the coming week to discuss how the review of these cases can be expedited. I have also asked the Crown Prosecution Service to conduct a review of the 15 ongoing cases involving an infant death of the sort described in yesterday's judgment.
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the Attorney-General for repeating that Statement. But does he find it extraordinary that he has to be dragged to the House to repeat word for word—I believe he changed three words: "today", "today" and "today" were changed to "yesterday"—a Statement he made in written form only yesterday? He had to be dragged to the House purely in response to a Question tabled by my honourable friend Dominic Grieve in another place.
	Clearly the Speaker thought the matter important enough for a Question; obviously the noble and learned Lord thought it was important, because he said that the case has "serious and far-reaching implications". Therefore would it not have been better had he volunteered a Statement to the House from the start—I believe that he was present yesterday—rather than first making a Written Statement and then repeating that Written Statement in the manner of an oral Statement to the House? I have never known that in my 25 years in this House.
	This is an important matter. I understand from the Statement that some 250 criminal cases are involved. There are 54 women still in prison. Will the noble and learned Lord tell us how the review will be structured and what urgency will be given to dealing with those cases where the convicted are still in prison? With what urgency will he be able to deal with them and ensure that they are released as soon as possible?
	Will he tell the House how long the Criminal Cases Review Commission intends to take in its review of the case and whether that is a further review over and above the review that the Government are mounting? Still on criminal matters, will he comment on the various adjustments that have been made to both the burden of proof and standard of proof in various Criminal Justice Acts in recent years? Does he agree that this matter shows how dangerous that can be? It would be best if we could see in all criminal cases the need to maintain the rule that no one should be convicted unless—I stress—the prosecution can show beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.
	I turn to the civil aspects. We understand from what I suspect was a rather ill judged interview in the Sunday Telegraph with Margaret Hodge—whom I gather is called the "Minister for Children"—that some tens of thousands of cases might be affected by the evidence of Sir Roy Meadows and others. Will the noble and learned Lord tell us how many cases there will be; whether the Government will appoint a judge to review all those cases; what note they will take of the GMC's review into the evidence of Sir Roy Meadows and others; and whether legal aid will be available to all those involved?
	It may be, as the so-called Minister for Children said, that it will not be possible to return those children to their parents. Even so, they have a right to have their cases reviewed, because they are entitled to have the stigma of their children's removal removed from them. Will the noble and learned Lord tell us how those civil cases will be resolved?
	Finally, following what I described as her rather ill judged interview in the Sunday Telegraph, what advice will the noble and learned Lord be offering to the Minister for Children, particularly in regard to her statement that it would not be possible to return children to their parents? Is that the case for every case?

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Statement by the Attorney-General, although we agree that it would have been better if an oral Statement had been made yesterday. This is clearly a high profile matter that has caused great public concern. It would plainly have been appropriate for the Statement to be made orally.
	Does the noble and learned Lord agree that these cases show the vital importance of ensuring that the innocent are not convicted and that the law does not assist in convicting them? Does he agree that the prosecution must avoid using experts who have a personal commitment to a contentious view; and that it is the prosecution's job to put a case fairly and in a balanced manner before the jury, which should not involve the use of committed experts where their views are open to question?
	The case recalls to mind the Orkney case some years ago which came under Scottish rather than English jurisdiction, where children from several families were taken away from their parents and some parents put on trial on the basis of what appeared ultimately to be the wholly inaccurate views of experts who believed that the children were being abused by families through satanic rituals. How quick will the review be? There are 258 cases. Some of those 258 will probably be found to have been rightly convicted, but it is clear that many appeals will be allowed; some may involve mothers who have spent years in prison wrongly convicted of a heinous crime.
	Resources must be made available to ensure that appeals are heard as quickly as possible. Can the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General give any timescale? Do the Government intend to compensate those who have been convicted on the basis of discredited evidence put forward on behalf of the prosecution? What about babies who have been separated from their families and taken into care because a previous sibling has died unexpectedly? The mother may not have been prosecuted but taking away the baby in those circumstances is a hideous punishment for a crime of which the mother has either been acquitted or not been charged.
	Will the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General assure the House that unless there are grounds for suspicion over and above the fact of the unexplained death of a previous baby, babies will not be removed from their families? Will steps be taken to restore children already taken away to their birth parents? Removing a new-born baby from birth parents and taking it into care is immensely damaging both to the child and to the child's family. Surely, removal should happen only where there is not just a risk but a substantial risk that the baby will become a victim of murder.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for welcoming the Statement. I may have missed it, but I did not notice that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, did that. I would have hoped that Members of the House would welcome the fact that within a very short time of an important judgment being given, I was able to announce an important review and to give an indication of the steps I was proposing to take and was taking in order to deal with that matter.
	I take my responsibilities to this House very seriously. That is why yesterday I ensured that I put in the House by way of a Written Statement details of the steps I was taking. I am glad that noble Lords and other Members of the two Houses are interested to know more on this issue and want to ask questions about it. I am happy to answer questions, but perhaps I may respectfully suggest that it is simply a political point to complain about being dragged to the House when I have made such an effort both to identify the steps that should be taken and to take them.
	I shall move on to the other questions raised. The noble Lords, Lord Henley and Lord Goodhart, asked, very understandably, about the time the review would take. As I have said, before the judgment in the Cannings case was produced but as a result of comments made by the Court of Appeal, I asked to identify as quickly as we could all the potential cases which might fall within the category which the Court of Appeal has now identified; that is, a category of case where the conviction is based exclusively or almost exclusively on contested, disputed, expert evidence. The interdepartmental group that I set up in the light of the Sally Clark case was able to identify 258 cases.
	I have made it clear that it is extremely unlikely that more than a small proportion of those 258 cases fall within those criteria. Those are cases of infant deaths; infants killed by a parent in the past 10 years. Sadly, in some of those cases there will be clear evidence of violence having been used by a parent on a child, and such cases do not fall within that rubric. The most urgent step is to deal with the cases that I have also identified where a parent is currently serving a term of imprisonment, to consider those cases and to identify which may fall within this category so that they can be reviewed urgently and as the highest priority. I shall want to see the other cases identified. As I indicated in my Statement, I hope that that process of identification will be completed within the next weeks.
	As to the next step, again, as I have indicated there are two possible courses: first, for the defendant himself or herself to consider appealing to the Court of Appeal, which may be possible—that may depend on what has happened before—or secondly, for the matter to be dealt with by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. I have therefore spoken twice with the chairman of that commission and, as I have said, I shall meet him again in the next few days to discuss how the commission can be in a position to expedite such cases that come before it. I agree with everything said by both noble Lords about the importance of urgency in relation to these cases.
	As I indicated in my Statement, I asked the Crown Prosecution Service to conduct a review of the 15 ongoing cases in which the same issue may arise. I am very pleased, but not the slightest surprised, that the Director of Public Prosecutions has already issued guidance to his Crown prosecutors asking them personally to review all such cases within the next 28 days and to send them to him so that he can consider them and decide whether any such case should be pursued. I am not at all surprised by that immediate action by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
	I turn to the other points raised. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked whether this is in some way indicative of problems resulting from a change in the burden and standard of proof in various criminal statutes. I am not aware of a change in the burden or standard of proof in any of the criminal statutes. The burden of proof remains very clearly on the prosecution. The standard of proof, except in those exceptional cases where the burden is upon the defendant to prove, remains for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the defendant so that, as is said these days, the jury feels sure. As far as I am aware, that remains true in all respects and I regard it as a very important part of our justice system.
	Still on the question of the criminal cases, before I turn to the other cases, I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, whether this case shows the vital importance of the courts not being used to convict the innocent. I agree absolutely with the noble Lord. The purpose of the criminal justice system is to convict the guilty but to ensure that the innocent are acquitted. Whenever we have a circumstance in which that does not appear to be working as it should, we in the justice system must pay the closest attention to it. That is why I have acted as I have done in this case.
	The noble Lord raised the question of experts. Experts need to be used in many cases. Frequently, without expert evidence in criminal cases, it would not be possible to bring a criminal to justice. The noble Lord is right to say that it is important that when experts give their evidence to a court they should do so objectively, dispassionately and impartially and should put their own expert experience before the court, not some personal commitment to a particular cause.
	There is one other matter with which I should deal which touches on the criminal cases. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, also asked whether the Government intend to compensate any persons who have been wrongly convicted. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me; it is too early to make a Statement in relation to that as we are simply on the eve of considering these cases. It is a proper question to raise and no doubt is one to which we shall return in due course.
	The noble Lords, Lord Henley and Lord Goodhart, both raised questions about civil cases. As noble Lords will appreciate, such cases raise different issues and different considerations. In a criminal case what matters is, "If you cannot be sure on the evidence that someone is guilty, that person must go free". In children cases, the paramount consideration is always the welfare of the child, which gives rise to different considerations. DfES Ministers, who are responsible for children at central government level, are considering the implications of this judgment for care and adoption cases. I am sure that as soon as they have reached a conclusion they will announce whether any—and, if so, what—steps need to be taken in relation to those cases. Noble Lords will know that it is not simply central government who have a responsibility in this area; indeed, if anything it is much more local authorities which have a responsibility in relation to child cases, and other cases are matters between private citizens. So, the role of central government is much more limited than in the case of prosecutions. I hope those answers deal with the questions raised by the two noble Lords.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, it is not the function of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General to concern himself with the Family Division. Can he tell us whether the Official Solicitor is taking or contemplating taking action to investigate this situation through the family courts? On one other matter, the Attorney-General has quite rightly said that there have not been specific changes in recent legislation; for instance, the Criminal Justice Act 2003. But what has been sought to be done and admitted by the Home Secretary is that he wishes to shift the balance between the prosecution and the defence. That is why we had long debates about the admission of previous convictions, bad character, propensity and the like. So there is substance in the proposition that we should watch with great care the extent to which we yield to proposals to alter the balance between the Crown and the litigants, be they criminal or civil.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his questions. He asked whether the Official Solicitor is taking action. I believe the position is this: since the passing of new legislation the Official Solicitor does not have a role at this stage. The matter has become one for local authorities which, having taken care proceedings, are under an obligation to review those orders with regularity. They are required to bring matters back to court if that is their opinion. That, as I stand on my feet, is the answer I give to the noble and learned Lord but I shall see if there is anything further I can say or any correction to be made. If so, I shall send it to the noble and learned Lord and put a copy in the Library.
	As regards his second point, I am grateful for his confirmation that there is nothing that he is aware of that has changed the burden or the standard of proof. I am well aware that there are many noble Lords and other commentators who will be watching the operation of the Criminal Justice Act as it goes through. I will not make any comment on particular provisions; we debated those at considerable length. We stand by the fundamental proposition that the prosecution must prove guilt and must prove it to the criminal standard.

Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, I congratulate the Attorney-General on the speed with which he has acted, the all-embracing nature of his proposals and the priority he is giving to those in prison. Will he confirm that the category he is looking at is much wider than the cases involving Sir Roy Meadow. Further, given the eminence of Sir Roy in this field, what influence has he had on other experts in cases in which they have given evidence?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend for his opening remarks. Coming from a former Attorney-General, it is gratifying to hear his approval. He is absolutely right in saying that the category is wider than those covering Professor Sir Roy Meadow or indeed the other expert, Dr Williams, whose name was mentioned in connection with the Sally Clark case. The Court of Appeal said in its important and thoughtful judgment that it is necessary to recognise that medical science is at the frontier of knowledge. There may be cases where there is no apparent explanation for a death or series of deaths but it may still be entirely innocent and not consistent with a criminal act. The review will go further and look at all cases where there is a sudden unexplained infant death and where the conviction appears to have been based almost entirely on expert evidence, whichever expert that may have been.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord address the particular problem which many feel is the most difficult issue that came out of the interview in the Sunday Telegraph referred to by my noble friend Lord Henley. In that interview the Minister said that it would not be possible—one assumed never would it be possible—for women who were found subsequently to be perfectly innocent of harming their children ever to get their children back. That matter worries many people because nothing could be worse than the denial of one's child. Will those women who had their children taken from them wrongly ever get them back?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I fully understand the concern which underlies that question. As I indicated before, the responsible Ministers in the DfES are considering the implications of this judgment and what, if any, steps need to be taken. I do not wish to prejudge what they may say. As a lawyer rather than the Minister responsible, I will simply say this. I do recognise that in children's cases the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child. I will say no more than that I can understand that there will be some cases—I do not say all cases—where a child may have been adopted or put into some long-term relationship. That child now has new parents, new family, new brothers and sisters. For any court dealing with that situation that may be a difficult issue to deal with—whether it is right to unravel that or to recognise that the child's best interest may be to be left where the child is.

Lord Laming: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his very helpful Statement. I am sure that the whole House is appalled at the idea of an innocent person being convicted of such an awful crime. Does he agree that we need to keep a very open mind in these matters? Sadly, there are parents who do deliberately harm their children. That being so, does he accept that we will always need expert witnesses? Rather than lose confidence in their role, is it not important that we take this opportunity to improve their training? Only this evening, guidance will be produced for those in the paediatric services on how people in this field can be alerted to early signs of deliberate harm.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the noble Lord is right in everything he has said. We must all be appalled at the thought of a mother tragically losing her child or children and then, even worse, being accused and convicted of a crime which she did not commit. I made that point clear in an answer in the House to a Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick. He is right. It sadly is the case that there are parents who do deliberately harm, even kill, their children. They are among the most vulnerable of our citizens and we plainly have to do as much as we can to protect them properly. The noble Lord with his experience from the inquiry he chairs knows better than most just how awful that can be and how parents can do that. We will therefore need expert evidence in cases. However, he is also correct to say that we need carefully to consider how that expert evidence is produced. I would not go so far as to confirm today that we should have some overall training exercise for experts. The noble Lord mentioned one field for which the Home Office is responsible where further training is being given to pathologists and I very much welcome that fact.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I too commend the noble and learned Lord for the way in which he has dealt with an extremely difficult matter. Given his unique position in terms of public access via the broadcasting media, perhaps I may ask him to get across two matters over which there is huge public misperception? The first, already referred to, is the paramountcy of the interests of the child which is the prevailing principle in civil matters. However, that has no bearing at all on criminal trials. There has been a tendency—and perhaps by juries too—to believe that somehow a different standard of proof is involved where a child is the subject of an alleged offence.
	Secondly, some noble Lords may have heard last night a leading spokesman for one of our most famous children's charities, suggesting—quite explicitly—that while no innocent parents or mothers must be convicted wrongly, no malefactors must ever be acquitted wrongly. That of course is an impossible proposition. There are a great many cases of greyness where one cannot be certain one way or the other. Unless the great British public—and particularly the tabloids—accept that to maintain the much admired standards of our system we must accept a certain number of wrong acquittals as the price of no false convictions, we will not get very far.
	Finally, I do not think that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General responded to the point on legal aid raised by both Front-Bench spokesmen. If there is—and it seems inevitable—a large number of difficult and perhaps long cases arising out of the review, will he assure the House that legal aid will be available on the normal terms; and in particular that the extra sum, which may be large, will not be part of its annual total? That would further reduce the amount available for civil legal aid, which is already in crisis.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his commendation. He is absolutely right that there is a great difference—as I tried to explain—between civil and criminal cases. The paramountcy of the interests of the child is what rightly drives us and our family courts. That has no bearing in criminal trials. I am not sure that I share the noble Lord's worry that juries are affected by that in their verdicts. Of course we do not know exactly what is in the minds of juries, but I can assure noble Lords that all judges summing up in such cases will remind juries clearly and repeatedly that it is their job to convict only if they are satisfied on the evidence and to put emotions out of their minds.
	I also agree with the noble Lord that it would be remarkable and wonderful if we had a system of justice that would always convict only the guilty and never acquit the guilty. However, we cannot have quite such a system. Our strong approach in this country—which I entirely endorse and which the Court of Appeal endorsed in its judgment yesterday—is that, occasionally, by relying on the burden and standard of proof—as high as they are—there will be some who are guilty but who will in fact escape because the evidence is not there. That is how it should be; and has often been put in the terms that it is better that some guilty should go free than that an innocent person should be convicted.
	I cannot while standing here give the noble Lord the assurances that he asks for regarding legal aid—would that I had that control over a budget operated by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. Obviously, I have that issue in mind, and I shall want to make sure that there are no obstacles to the review taking place as it should.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, from my point of view, the extent to which the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has been able to bring forward proposals for dealing with this complex issue in such great detail, considering the time that has elapsed, is highly to be commended. Certainly, I appreciate it very much.
	I am very concerned about the Family Division and the county courts' work on the family side. The Attorney-General was—I have no doubt—immensely helped in bringing forward today's proposals by the fact that the Crown Prosecution Service has overall responsibility for the criminal cases which are likely to be affected by this judgment; whereas in the family jurisdiction, particularly in view of what he has said about the Official Solicitor, there is much less of an integrated national system for finding out quickly which cases might be affected.
	In children's cases—as the Children Act makes clear—unnecessary delay is very harmful from the point of view of the most satisfactory outcome. I understand fully and accept what the noble and learned Lord has said about the difficulty of uprooting children—who may have been wrongly removed in the first place—who have now settled down in their new situation and extricating them again because the original decision was wrong. I can see that problem.
	However, in view of what has happened, some kind of system for looking at the cases where the fundamental reason for the intervention has been an allegation that a parent has harmed a sibling of the child affected by the custody or the care order is highly to be sought. I know that it is not the Attorney-General's direct responsibility to look after these matters, but I take the view—I think rightly—that the Attorney-General has a general remit for helping the Government to reach a proper result in matters of law. I am sure that advice will be available to the Ministers in what is now the Department for Education and Skills. The issue used to be dealt with in another department, but it has now been moved.
	It is very important that a national review is put in place as soon as possible. I appreciate the difficulties and the obstacles there will be, but I think that people and families—mothers particularly—who have been affected by such judgments are entitled to have the situation reviewed with the interests of their children still being paramount and very much the principal interest.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he said at the beginning and also for his recognition of the difficulties that there are in the children's cases. When the noble and learned Lord held the high position of Lord Chancellor I know that that was a matter of great interest and concern to him.
	I take the noble and learned Lord's point about there not being the same national system to enable cases to be identified as there is in the criminal system. That is the consequence of responsibility being with local authorities. I understand that point.
	The noble and learned Lord makes important points about what should happen now. It is not possible for me to go further than to say that those very important points will be drawn to the attention of the relevant Ministers. Indeed, one is sitting next to me on the Front Bench. I know that careful consideration is now being given to the implications of the judgment in those cases.
	On my own position, I have provided—and, indeed intend to provide—such advice and assistance to Ministers in that department as it is within my ability to give to help to solve these difficult issues.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, following on from a previous answer by the noble and learned Lord, perhaps he will tell the House how many of the 258 defendants were actually charged or could have been charged with the crime of infanticide, as distinct from murder or manslaughter?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I cannot. As the Statement says, the convictions are for murder, manslaughter and infanticide—in relation to infants under two. I do not know at this very early stage how many were for infanticide. I do not know whether any in the other categories might have been charged as infanticide. I suspect not, because that is a verdict to be preferred in a case where the conditions were met. But, if I am in a position to give a further breakdown once the review is completed, I will. Plainly, when we have broken down the issue, I shall want the House to know the number of cases affected by the judgment. If I can give some further breakdown in the way that the noble and learned Lord requests, I shall seek to do so.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords—

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I think that the Cross-Benchers have just had their turn.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is the turn of the Conservative Benches.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of how deep and wide this evil runs? In my daily life, I see the little end of it, where the theories of experts are allowed to terrorise parents of children with special educational needs, particularly ADHD, dyspraxia, and the fringes of autism. All that needs to be mentioned is Munchausen's syndrome by proxy, and the parent is suddenly an evil person at the wrong end of social services and officialdom, without help and is suspected of being the one who is causing her child difficulties.
	We have allowed the expert to start a witch hunt in a general way, which has terrorised tens of thousands of parents. They are among the most heart-rending things that I must deal with. Can we not use the terrible events that the noble and learned Lord has so rightly thrown light on to, and expressed an entirely admirable willingness to investigate, to reach down into the depths of our system and make sure that we offer relief in relation to not only these big cases but also the little cases? Can we ensure that we restore again the presumption that by and large parents care for their children and do not wish them harm? Will the Minister ask the Department of Health to withdraw their circular approving of this utterly discredited diagnosis of Munchausen's syndrome by proxy?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, this is the wrong moment in the debate to get into such controversial issues as the noble Lord raises. Much in what he says would not be accepted by the department, but now is not the time for me, or anyone else, to attempt to deal with it.

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rooker.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
	"APPLICATION OF PART 1
	Part 1 shall apply only if an elected assembly for the region has been established."

Baroness Hamwee: In moving this amendment, I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 14, 15, 134 and 135.
	In his disarming speech when he wound up at Second Reading, the Minister described the Bill as having had a drubbing. He also said that he recognised the concern about the democratic deficit, and he said that he had got the message. If the message that he then identified led to the government amendments on a democratically elected sphere of government having a role in regional spatial strategy—we will debate them later—something has been lost in translation.
	Many of us are enthusiasts for devolved government. Everyone in this House would say that we want to see government at the lowest practicable level, although our differences would be in identifying where that level is. Few in this House would say that powers should be transferred upwards and become more centralised. Yet, we have a Government who have promoted devolution and had the guts and the energy to enact a lot of it. Those of us who would have liked to go further are ready to acknowledge that. The Government have produced a version of devolution that transfers powers and responsibilities from an elected sphere—the counties—to, bluntly, itself.
	There is not merely a democratic deficit in the new proposals; there is a loss of democracy. I am genuinely sad to have to start the detailed work on the Bill on this note. There is much in the Bill that I support. When I said yesterday to the Minister that I was coming round to seeing the virtues of some of the later proposals, he told me not to apologise for that. Among the things that I support are regional and sub-regional planning. We have a regional spatial strategy, which in its first incarnation as the Secretary of State's regional planning guidance—I understand the Government's need to avoid a vacuum—is to be revised by a regional planning body that is designated by the Secretary of State.
	The draft regulations for the composition of the regional planning body provide that recognition—and the Government are honest enough to say that that means funding—is dependent on at least 30 per cent of the membership with voting rights being from other than local authorities. I would have some reservations even if 100 per cent were from local authorities in this model. That comes from my experience of an indirectly elected body. For eight years, I chaired the London Planning Advisory Committee, which dealt with London planning issues after the abolition of the GLC. The members, who were members of borough councils, did the job with interest and with some application, but it was not their prime responsibility, and reasonably so. Their first responsibility was for their own boroughs. One would routinely encounter members having to leave meetings early and some being less focused on strategic issues than they were on local issues. That response was entirely reasonable, but it is an inevitable outcome of one being indirectly elected.
	I am sure that the Minister will later remind the House of his amendments and the Deputy Prime Minister's statement in announcing them. That is the role of the local authorities. I am delighted that the Deputy Prime Minister was able to say that the Local Government Association and the County Councils Network have agreed to give,
	"full support to making the new regional planning arrangements a success".
	Their members are reasonable and responsible people—of course they want to make the new arrangements a success. That does not mean that the government amendments are the best or the only way to deal with the democratic deficit that I have identified.
	Our amendment is a sunrise provision to the effect that the regions should take on the functions of regional spatial planning when there are elected regional bodies to do so, working with the counties and the districts. Until then, let us find a way—the way that we are proposing is the right way—of observing the principles of democracy and accountability. That would mean retaining the status quo on the role of the counties. The Minister may say that we will have the status quo, because regional planning guidance will become the regional spatial strategy. Structure plans will be saved—that is the term—for three years. That does not meet our concern, but it makes it clear that there is an opportunity to get the structure and responsibilities right. I make it clear to the noble Lords opposite who, among others, may feel that by starting off in this way we are setting out the wreck the Bill. That is not so, and our amendment is not as devastating as it may be painted. In another place the Minister, Mr McNulty, said that some of the matters that I am referring to are matters for a regional powers Bill. Quite so.
	In 1998 the Government identified problems with the production of regional planning guidance. Your Lordships should not be too impressed that I am about to quote from a document. I went to the website to see which documents were relevant to the Bill, and printed one off before I realised that it was five years old. However, it identified the following, and I think it is worth considering these criticisms.
	According to the document, regional planning guidance lacks regional focus and vision and spends too much time reiterating national policies; apart from housing provision, it lacks targets which can be monitored and reviewed; it is too narrowly land-use orientated; it lacks sufficient environmental objectives and appraisal; it takes too long to produce; it does not command commitment from regional stakeholders, and the process of producing it is insufficiently transparent. I agree with much of that critique, but it does not seem to us necessary to reduce the role of elected representatives in order to meet those criticisms.
	There is a practical aspect, too. It was expressed to me by a county councillor from North Yorkshire as follows: the likely outcome of the Government's proposals is that county council resources and expertise will slowly wither away and that political commitment will decline as a core function at the present time becomes, at best, an ancillary activity in future years. On Second Reading, many of your Lordships expressed concern about the lack of planning expertise and about expertise leeching away.
	Amendments Nos. 14 and 15, which propose that an elected regional assembly shall be the regional planning body, follow on from this. Amendments Nos. 134 and 135 are also consequential. It took me some time to find in the Bill how county structure plans were being dealt with and, having found the references, I thought I would add them to the amendment. But the more serious point is that buried in a schedule are these unusual provisions which say, in effect, that unless an authority has got to such and such a point in its structure plan, it shall do no more. That is an interesting approach to what is very close to the repeal of primary legislation.
	No doubt we on these Benches will be teased because we have been vociferous advocates of regionalism. Indeed we are—but of devolved, elected regional government, not of the emasculation of counties and certainly not of centralisation. I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham: I want to make it clear at the outset that I support the noble Baroness's amendment. While we are not at all in favour of regional government—and that was made very plain in our discussions on the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill—we are equally completely opposed to the proposals for an arrangement whereby a body, which is still largely unidentified, made up of largely unknown persons, produces a document of such significance as a regional spatial strategy. In particular, it will have to contain the regional guidance as laid out by the Secretary of State.
	Where the Secretary of State is becoming involved to such an extent, there must be not only scrutiny of his policies but effective decision-making by elected members on the applicability of those policies. This is a paramount requirement, particularly when the Secretary of State's guidance may, and almost certainly will, include such matters as the provision of large-scale housing developments, infrastructure provision in the region—possibly including new methods of energy provision and the siting of wind farms—and the identification of preferred areas for housing.
	The Secretary of State's policies under Clause 1 appear to be mandatory—a mandatory part of the spatial strategy—and his directions unchallengeable. Without elected members' input into these documents, they will be put together, presumably by the civil servants of the regional government offices. Unless amendments regarding the county councils are agreed later in the Bill's proceedings, their role, which was formerly to deal with the structure plans, will be confined to assisting—I think that was the word used by the Deputy Prime Minister—the regional planning body. I am aware that the Minister will be moving an amendment to give the county councils this statutory advisory role. We will discuss then whether that is an appropriate and strong enough commitment. But I am bound to say that unless the Minister's words change my view, I do not believe that that is sufficient.
	It still means that the primary work will be done, at best, in conjunction with the regional planning body, whatever that ends up as being. At worst, it will be done only by the Civil Service.
	If the regional planning body were to be the regional assembly, that, too, would be unsatisfactory, as only a small proportion of the membership of those bodies is made up of elected members. The rest are appointed from business, the unions, environmental organisations and other interested organisations. While they are of course extremely interested and extremely valuable in the role they play at present, they are not democratically accountable for what is produced on their behalf.
	All in all, we believe this to be extremely unsatisfactory. The impact of regional spatial strategies on communities could be immense. The means whereby those communities can play any part in vetoing any aspects about which they are concerned or do more than comment, in an advisory capacity, is opaque. For this reason, we believe that in the event that there is no elected regional assembly, there should be no possibility of Clause 1 being implemented. I support the amendment.

Lord Bradshaw: I declare an interest as an Oxfordshire county councillor. County councils are, in most places in the country, the absolute epitome of democracy. There are high turnouts in county council elections, even in the years when there is no parliamentary election coincident with them. Admittedly, turnout was more than 80 per cent last year but normally it is well over 60 per cent in the county I represent, which is higher than in very many elections. Usually, the results of those elections are fairly proportional across a county, as between parties, which is not the case at parliamentary elections.
	Most county councillors are known to a high proportion of their electors. Most of my colleagues attend meetings of parish councils once a month, and some attend as many as 13 or 14 of these meetings each month. There they give their reports and they hear questions and comments from members of the public assembled there. On planning matters, large numbers will often attend.
	County councillors represent and serve people, and reflect their views in the council chamber, on structure plan working parties, and are well aware of housing pressures, educational difficulties, school and social services problems and matters affecting the police, the fire service and the libraries, to name some of their responsibilities.
	I acknowledge that there is some place for a regional spatial strategy—there has to be one below central government. However, my main point is that I sincerely believe that the severing of the link between the electorate and those responsible for the structure plan will be a problem for the Government—and I strike a note of great caution here. We often make unpalatable decisions which we can sell to the electors because we know who they are; we can talk about trade-offs and everybody takes a share of what is unpleasant because they can see fairness within the county. However, the Government run the risk that taking those decisions away from the county will leave local people alienated and disaffected because they will see results and decisions being imposed on them by an unelected regional assembly to which, in most cases, they have no sense of belonging.

Lord Waddington: My support for the amendment should certainly not be taken as support for elected regional assemblies. To my mind there is absolutely nothing whatever to be said for them. I have always suspected that the Minister agrees with me, but because of the position in which he sits he cannot say so. Elected regional assemblies at best will be an expensive waste of time and at worst will hasten the Balkanisation of Great Britain.
	The amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is very useful, if only because it is a timely reminder of the sharp practice in which the Government are indulging. I believe that all along the Government's plan has been to give regional bodies powers that they should not have anyway, and then to plead that now that those bodies have the powers, there is deficit of democratic accountability, so we must have regional assemblies. That is the argument behind all that they have been advancing. Therefore, the obvious course is not to have regional assemblies, but to try to demolish the bureaucracies that at present are being created in regional government up and down the country.
	In the regions, which are completely artificial creations and which in no way reflect natural loyalties or communities of interest, regional bureaucracies are already blossoming and one has only to read the Guardian to see the non-jobs that are being advertised for them. I have invited noble Lords before to take an interest in what is going on in the government office of the East Midlands. As long ago as 2002 that government office was advertising for the post of director of infrastructure and community affairs. The fatuous job description said:
	"The holder of the job would have responsibility for ensuring GOEM delivers the step-changes we are seeking in the implementation of joined-up policy throughout our own geographical structure".
	Such utter rubbish goes on and on. The Government should be busy dismantling such bureaucracies now rather than arguing that because we have them we should have some kind of elected assemblies to try to embark on the impossible task of knocking them into shape.
	The passage of the Bill will perform a useful purpose if it reminds people of what lies behind it and the link between this Bill and the Government's plans for regional assemblies. The passage of the Bill will perform a useful purpose if it wakes people up to the fact that the Government's plans for the regions do not involve devolving power from central government to the regions; they involve robbing existing authorities like the county councils of powers such as planning powers. In other words, powers that have been part of our local government structure for generations will be taken away from authorities. That structure is well known to people and they can relate to it. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, on the fact that our local authorities are well respected and work extremely well as democratically elected bodies. Powers will be taken away from those well respected bodies and given to new authorities that will be more remote from the people. What good will come of that? I can see no good whatever coming from that.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I declare an interest as a county councillor in Suffolk and I inform the Committee that I have been a local authority member since 1991, involved both at district council level with development control and with the more strategic planning functions at county council level.
	I support my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I should be grateful to the Minister if he could address a practical issue that has caused me some concern. In the east of England we are, by the Government's own calculations, at least seven or eight years from an elected regional assembly, assuming that the people of the east of England want such a body, which is open to question. At the moment there is an embryonic planning function at regional level but because it is a very small operation and because there is no real elected or effective regional body, there is a very small staff and, in the main, the technical advice for the regional planning function comes from the county council.
	I believe that the diminution of the county council's role to that of an advisory body, although it is now to be statutory, will have two effects. First, I believe that it will lead to a massive haemorrhaging of experienced planning staff from county councils who will be able to see their future role disappearing and therefore they will move away. Secondly, and more worryingly, county councils with a lot of pressure on their budgets will simply lower the level of resource that they put into what now is to be simply an advisory function. If that happens we shall have the worst of both worlds: we shall have an emasculated county council planning function but no robust regional planning function to take its place. I should be grateful if the Minister could explain to me and to the Committee how that problem is to be addressed.

Viscount Ullswater: I support the amendment moved very ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I declare an interest: I am a local councillor on the Borough Council of King's Lynn and West Norfolk, although I am not a member of the Development Control Board.
	I support the amendment for three reasons. First, planning is very prescriptive and therefore should take place as close as possible to the local area. The Bill replaces local plans, which have been developed very well since being introduced by the previous government. It gives developers and local people much more certainty of what would receive permission. That, in turn, leads to the speeding up of the planning process and allows many more decisions to be delegated to the officers of the council if the application falls within the guidelines. The local plans work well; they deliver the right kind of targets; and they are updated constantly by local people subject to the planning guidelines handed down by regional planning guidance or by the Secretary of State.
	The new development framework, as proposed in the Bill, which is to be made up of local development documents, is the old development plans with a nasty new twist, which is that the Secretary of State is to be given powers to intervene in the preparation stage in a way that is wholly unjustified. What right has the Secretary of State to direct the local planning authority to make amendments to the scheme as he thinks fit?
	My second reason is that the introduction of a regional spatial strategy is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, has just mentioned, an attempt to give legitimacy to the shadow regional planning bodies that currently exist, without any form of authority, but which still wield power. The problem of giving power but no democratic legitimacy is that it creates huge resentment in the tiers below. At Second Reading the Minister said:
	"The counties will be consultees on regional plans, and will continue to be responsible for transport, waste, and mineral plans. The regions can use the counties as agents on sub-regional planning".—[Official Report, 6/1/04; col. 100.]
	With a swipe, the power of the council is removed from the elected bodies and transferred to an unelected regional planning body that is directly under the control of the Secretary of State. An example of the danger in that policy—it was mentioned by my noble friend on the Front Bench—is likely to be the attitude taken to wind turbines. I am quite certain that it will become a regional planning policy directed by the Secretary of State, and local councils and county councils will not have any voice in its implementation.
	Norfolk is designated to produce more than 10 per cent of its energy requirements by renewable resources, excluding what might be generated out at sea. It will require a veritable forest of wind turbines to generate that amount of energy. Without the consent of local people, that will be deeply resented.
	Thirdly, in attempting to reform local government, the previous Conservative government tried to do away with many counties and local authorities and replace them with unitary authorities. I am sure that the Minister will recall that. There was an outcry from almost every part of the country, and different solutions had to be found. It would be wrong to go down the route that the Government propose without the consent of the people in the form of a referendum. Let us trust the people for a change.

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: I oppose the amendment, although I assure Members of the Committee that there will be many times during our proceedings when I shall be critical, as I would like to see many changes in the Bill. On this occasion, however, I oppose the proposal. I declare an interest in that I am the director of two businesses involved in the development world and consultant to a number of others.
	The amendment says that Part 1 should not come into force unless there is an elected regional assembly. A number of the speeches seemed to indicate that that was a wrecking move, because if there were no elected regional assembly, there would be no Part 1. The question is, what is Part 1 trying to achieve? There is a need for a regional spatial strategy on a statutory basis. Such a strategy should be drawn up by a body that has its heart and soul in the development of that region. Regions vary considerably across the country, and solely leaving everything to regional guidance from central government has failed in the past, and continues to fail, to do justice to the regional variety and dynamics of the regions throughout England.
	In my view, we need a regional spatial strategy that is based as firmly as possible within each region. I would much prefer that to be a body that is part of and responsible to a directly elected assembly. If, on the other hand, people from different regions decide that they do not want a directly elected assembly, that does not in my view diminish one jot the fact that we need strong regional strategies. It is best if they are drawn up, taken through and led by elected bodies but, if they are not, we still need such regional strategies.
	The amendment, as I read it, says that if there is no directly elected assembly, no regional spatial strategy will be drawn up by people largely or entirely drawn from the individual regions. That would be a great loss. In my own region of Yorkshire and Humber, it is not simply a matter of county councils—as much as I admire and respect the role of the local county council in North Yorkshire. It is a great mix of large cities, all-purpose authorities, county councils, district councils and so on. That does not result in a coherent, strong regional policy—and nor will it, in my view.
	Therefore, I oppose the amendment, which is a wrecking amendment in some parts, and expresses a desire to put one's credentials on the line in respect of directly elected assemblies. I would love to see them throughout the regions, and certainly in my own region. In the absence of that, the amendment would effectively wreck putting a regional spatial strategy on a statutory basis, drawn up by and driven by people who are genuinely interested in taking their region forward. In my view, that would be a great mistake on the part of noble Lords.

Lord Greaves: I support my noble friend's amendment, and I do so from a slightly different point of view, although I agree with everything that she said. I also agree with one thing that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, said. He said that there was a danger that under the Government's proposals for the regional assemblies, for which it is intended that we shall have referendums in three northern regions this autumn, the regional assemblies would be an "expensive waste of time".
	I take a diametrically opposite view of regional government to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, as I believe very strongly in effective, strong regional government based essentially on devolution of powers from the highly centralised state based in Whitehall and Westminster. However, my concern about the Government's proposals for regional assemblies is that they will be weak, will not have anything to do, will be expensive for what they do and that they are basically taking powers upwards from local government rather than devolving them from London. That is a concern, and a concern held by many people in my region of the north-west. I wish that concern was not there.
	The amendment gets to the heart of one issue. If the people in the north-west, and in Yorkshire, are to be persuaded to vote for the Government's regional assemblies later this year, there will have to be seen to be a clear difference between what happens when there is a regional assembly and what happens when there is none. Merely having an elected body of probably quite well paid politicians who are not seen to do very much will not be a difference that people will appreciate.
	People will have to see reasons why there should be an assembly. I have tabled Amendment No. 10, which does a similar thing to this amendment but in a less drastic way. This amendment says that, when one has a regional assembly, the position is quite different, because the region will have something important to do, and that when one does not have a regional assembly, it will not. That is a basic issue that the Government will have to think very hard about across all sorts of policy areas in the next few months. We are discussing planning here, so we will talk about planning.
	I remember vividly that during the Committee stage of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill, the Minister kept repeating a mantra: "no more powers, no more money". I believe that there ought to be more powers where there is an elected regional assembly. In this case, the regional spatial strategies will not simply consist in taking over what exists at the moment in terms of regional planning guidance at regional level, but will take powers upwards from local government in the form of the structure plan powers. Not only the county councils but the unitary authorities will be involved, such as the area of Leeds which the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, represents very well in a general sort of way. Leeds will lose powers to the new regional assembly or to a non-elected regional assembly, under the Government's proposals. Powers will go upwards from all local government, and not just the counties. If that is going to happen, the only possible justification for it is if the body that is taking over at regional level is elected.
	The democratic arguments apply, but so do the practical arguments. I do not believe that the Government will persuade people in the north-west to vote for their regional assembly, unless it has an important series of jobs to be done. We can address the planning issue here by passing my noble friend's amendment.

Lord Lucas: I support the amendment and the remarks of my noble friend Lord Ullswater. I take heart when I listen to the Prime Minister talking about the introduction of democracy to Iraq. I wish that he would bring that same sentiment closer to home and be as fond of democracy in the United Kingdom and this Chamber. However, democracy is a dirty word as regards application in this country. What is important is to pass powers upwards: to have things dictated by people who are sufficiently expert and broad in their vision to take decisions which, in the Government's view, need to be taken without bothering to consult people too much.
	It may well seem to people who do not live in Norfolk that during the 50 years or so while we wait for global warming to transform it into a marina it would be a good idea to build a few wind farms there. One cannot impose such decisions on people and maintain a respect for and agreement to government. Governments depend on our agreeing to be bound by the strictures that Government put on us and to feel that it is government with our consent. Things that happen locally require decisions to be taken locally or we shall lose the feeling of consent.
	It is a problem for the police. They have lost their local presence. They have lost the local policeman. Therefore, the police are alien to us. When they stop us for some minor offence they are not our police but the state's police. That is not constructive. It leads to a gradual diminution of people's enthusiasm for involvement with the state, with public processes, and a commitment to the way in which they are governed. If we allow this sort of thing to continue, it will have great consequences. The only way to stop it continuing is to deal with each of its minor appearances. We are here talking about imposing things on people which need not be imposed. We can gain consent locally albeit a little more slowly and with a little more trouble. Some areas may say no and create difficulties. But it is important to involve people and obtain their consent.
	The development industry and the Government will find that inconvenient from time to time. But unless we proceed with people's consent, in the end we will damage our democracy. We are prepared to fight for that elsewhere; it should be an issue for which we are prepared to fight little battles here.

Lord Haskins: I declare an interest as chairman of the Campaign for Yorkshire Devolution. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, that natural loyalties and communities of interest are strong and flourishing in Yorkshire. I point him towards the front page of today's Financial Times which shows the underperformance of all our great provincial cities of Britain compared with the equivalent great provincial cities of Europe—and if we had had the same report on the great provincial cities of the United States, alas, we should have seen the same thing. The difference between those countries and ourselves is that they have elaborate regional democracies in place and we do not.
	The objective of the campaign is to raise the democratic process by assuming substantial powers away from Whitehall. If that does not happen, we shall have failed in our efforts. Secondly, it is to call to account the unelected quangos—I am a member of one or two—about which the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is understandably concerned. The only way to call them to account, if we have any regional structure, is to have regional democracy alongside us. We have to tackle the bureaucracy which, rightly, worries most of us, particularly around Whitehall. The purpose of such devolution is to undermine that bureaucracy and the second guessing which takes place. The basis for that regional democracy is a strong alliance between the county councils and the regional democracies, to strengthen the local authorities in their role in our modern government.
	I believe, therefore, that the Government's proposals in this respect work best when devolved government is in place. I hope that Yorkshire will, not for the first time, show an example to the rest of the country in the referendum later in the year and that lessons will be learned from the success of devolution in Yorkshire so that the poor people of the east of England will be encouraged to follow with great enthusiasm in the years to come.

Lord Sheppard of Didgemere: I shall speak in favour of the amendment but not because I have been involved in local government. I seem to have been electing various authorities all my life. Sometimes I have agreed with them; sometimes I have not.
	I am a great believer in democracy. I can assure the Committee that the feeling on this issue of citizens who have not been directly involved in local government is very strong. They wonder where democracy is going. I do not talk as a Londoner. In London we have an elected authority. I am not certain which party the mayor is in; perhaps we know now. But it is at least an elected authority and I have no right, therefore, to complain about what my fellow citizens want on the London plan.
	However, I live in the east of England, in Essex. We do not know what is going on other than that unelected bodies will change our lives completely. Two or three nearby local authorities agree with what the village community says on, for example, protecting the green belt. Essex County Council also agrees. But they are pushed to one side by a body which most of the people in the village had no idea existed until this issue arose. We shall now fight democratically in every way possible. But when considering such overruling, if we are asked to believe in democracy we cannot.

Lord Rooker: I suspect that during debate on the Bill we shall discuss the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act ad nauseam. People want to keep re-visiting it. The Liberal Democrats do not believe in choice anyway. They would impose regional government on the remainder of the country. They can shake their heads all they like. I am on my feet now and I shall not give way.
	We seek to do it a different way. Some regions may not want regional elected government. We are giving the people the choice. The first three referendums will be held later this year. One cannot assume what will happen after that. The Liberal Democrat policy is clearly to impose regional government.
	Having listened to noble Lords, there has been a big squeal of vested political interest in virtually every speech. People listening to our debates could be misled. No noble Lord mentioned that the planning authority which will deal with the planning applications for the citizens of this country is the elected district council. Nothing is changing. Anyone would think that we are wiping out the district councils: they are the planning authorities which will make the decisions on the planning applications. No one mentions that because we are having a different debate: one of political vested interest from the county councils. Heads may be shaken but that is the reality.

Viscount Ullswater: I wonder whether the Minister heard my speech. I devoted at least a third of it to local development plans and queried the need for the Secretary of State to involve himself personally in the new development framework. Local development plans which I said have worked well have already been mentioned in the debate.

Lord Rooker: I have not come to that. We shall have similar debates about the accretion to the Secretary of State of so-called powers which, frankly, is not of the scale which has been alleged compared with the status quo. There are no substantial massive changes there. The district councils are the planning authorities. They are democratically elected. When citizens put in a planning application, they will deal with their local council as they do now. Nothing will change. But the debate so far is clearly designed to prevent the reform of the regional planning system, which is what we are talking about here, and not development control. It is a fair point to make; it is a fair way to begin debate on the Bill. I do not object to that.

Lord Sheppard of Didgemere: Perhaps I may ask the Minister when Essex ceased to be a region? When did I become an east Englander? I am not aware of any democratic process that decided that. I believe in regional local government. I call it Essex.

Lord Rooker: If the noble Lord believes in regional government and calls his regional government Essex, that is his choice. I do not think that anyone, including the noble Lord the leader of his county council would claim—I invite him to do so—that Essex is the region. One has to be realistic. I do not believe that that is a realistic proposition. Nevertheless, many legitimate points have been made and I shall do my best to answer them.
	The bottom line is that this group of amendments, important though they are, is designed to prevent the reform of the regional planning system, which is what the Bill is about. To that extent, they are wrecking. I do not mean that in a pejorative sense, but it would simply undermine the whole purpose of the Bill.

Earl Russell: When the Minister begins a speech in so belligerent a manner, he creates the suspicion that he may be trying to distract the attention of the Committee from something. He has increased the Committee's curiosity as to what that might be.

Lord Rooker: So far as I am aware, the noble Earl was not here for most of the speeches that I have just listened to. Therefore, I am in no position to look into the window of his mind to see what he thinks I am about.
	I have not been belligerent at all. I have made the point that I have heard a lot about political vested interests. I do not think that anyone is denying that. There are people here representing county councils, which they see as under threat. I do not see it that way, but it is a legitimate point to make.
	I think the Liberal Democrats take the view that there ought to be regional government. They say that; indeed, they would impose it. We want to give people a choice on regional government. There is nothing belligerent about that. I do not have to sit here, listen and accept everything I hear. I want to try to make a legitimate response to what has been said. I have no hidden agenda: everything is out in the open. I am not trying to sugar-coat the Bill. I would not try to do that anyway.
	The point about this group of amendments is the proposition that there should be regional spatial strategies and regional planning bodies only in areas where we have elected regional assemblies. I do not want to go over the previous Act now, but it is a step-by-step process if people decide whether they even want to have a referendum. One cannot assume what the end-game might be. Everyone knows that there will be three referenda later this year. That is the effect of this new clause in Amendment No. 1.
	Amendment No. 14 would require the elected regional assembly to be the regional planning body. Amendment No. 15 would remove the provisions that relate to setting the criteria for recognising a body as the regional planning body in regulations, the powers of the Secretary of State to withdraw that recognition by direction and his power to exercise regional planning body functions where there is no regional planning body in place. Amendment No. 134 would alter the transitional arrangements for structure plans. It would provide for authorities to continue with alterations or replacements of structure plans provided no elected regional assembly was in place.
	To say that I am disappointed by these amendments is a fair assessment of the situation, though not in any kind of belligerent way. They offer no solution whatever to the problems with our planning system and our system of plans. They appear directly to undermine the reforms. The existing system is bogged down by too many plans that are often out of date—we have heard some examples of that in previous legislation—and not in line with one another. We also have three tiers of plans, which we believe to be simply too many.
	We accept—and I do not think there is any difference between any of us on this—that we need strong regional planning. For the avoidance of doubt, when I say "regions" I am talking about the regions as set out by the previous government, not the counties. Regional planning policies that form part of the development plan are needed to address the particular opportunities and challenges faced by an individual region. In effective regional planning policy, we think it is vital to tackle the historic regional disparities that exist and to respond to the challenges of a modern economy. The point made by my noble friend Lord Haskins is wholly legitimate in this respect, given those figures that I, too, saw this morning on the front page of the Financial Times.
	We need strong local plans at a level where the community can really engage with the process of plan making, where proposals to develop particular sites can be properly debated. That situation is absolutely fundamental. We want to make regional spatial strategies statutory and so part of the development plan. We do not think we should continue with a system where outdated lower-level plans can take precedence over more up-to-date regional plans in key planning decisions. That is the position that exists today. We want a system for strategic planning that is based around areas that are interdependent on the ground, not one constrained by administrative boundaries. I believe I said in a previous debate that when I visited the Thames Gateway, I flew over it at 500 feet as a lot of it is inaccessible. The great advantage of that is that you do not see administrative boundaries. You see it in a completely different way. I am not knocking the boundaries, but the fact is that we are tied down to some of the historical administrative boundaries and we need policies that are not necessarily constrained by those boundaries.
	The county boundaries do not work as the basis for effective strategic planning. That may be a point of disagreement between some of us, and we can have lots of debates about it. But, by and large, there must be a consensus between the two Houses to make the point that counties cannot work as the basis for strategic planning at the level required. Many strategic planning issues—I do not claim all—cut across county boundaries and are best dealt with at a regional or a sub-regional level, certainly not at the county level.
	The regional planning process needs to be driven forward by a body able to represent the region and to take a strategic view. The regional chambers are best placed to fulfil that role. I do not accept that some sort of democratic deficit now arises as a result of regional chambers having responsibility for regional planning.
	This does not represent a new departure. Responsibility for preparing regional strategies already rests with regional planning bodies which, since 1 April last year, have been the regional chamber in each region. We are proposing that these arrangements should continue, provided that the chamber is sufficiently inclusive. We are not suddenly transferring powers from counties to regions.
	Under the existing system, county structure plans should be in line with and follow the strategic planning framework set in the regional planning guidance. What we are doing is removing a filter that has slowed down the expression of strategic regional planning policies in local plans. We are clearing out a system that allows out-of-date structure plans to take precedence over up-to-date regional plans. Now, hands up anybody who is in favour of that continuing? It is barmy. You cannot explain to the public that out-of-date structure plans, years old in some cases, should take precedence over up-to-date regional plans. You would have a hell of a job explaining that to the general public when they were concerned about their particular locality.

Lord Greaves: Does the Minister—

Lord Rooker: I see that we now have an offer from a Liberal Democrat.

Lord Greaves: Yes, wisdom comes from all parts of the Chamber. Does the Minister really believe that structure plans are all many years out of date and will always be many years out of date; and that his wonderful new regional plans will all have been agreed and decided last week?

Lord Hanningfield: Perhaps I may comment on that point before the Minister answers. With structure plans one could have county spatial plans. It has not been the county structural plans that have held up the system; it has been various governments who have put various timetables on it. The faults have not been with counties but with governments on timetables. You could have very speedy county spatial plans in a modern way. Therefore, we cannot agree at all with what the Minister has just said.

Lord Rooker: The short answer to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—and the only one he is going to get—is "No". That is the answer to the question. We are going to argue about this, I suspect, for some time. I take the point.

Lord Greaves: Does the—

Lord Rooker: I gave the noble Lord an answer. He asked me a specific question, and I answered him, "No". I am not going to elaborate. He may not like a one-word answer, but that is the answer I shall give however many times he asks the question.

Lord Greaves: What the Minister does not realise is that I am not going to ask the same question again. I want to point out that the whole of the Minister's argument has been based on his allegation that structure plans are always out of date and that the new regional spatial plans will always be up to date. That is the whole of his argument. He is asking: "Will people agree with that?" When I ask him whether that will always be the case, he says "No". So he has undermined his own argument, absolutely and completely in one word.

Lord Rooker: If the noble Lord checks Hansard tomorrow he will realise that he has put words in my mouth that I do not accept.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Rooker: I know what I said and I did not say what the noble Lord claims I said.
	I accept that the chambers are not directly elected and that that is a bone of contention. We are being realistic about that; no one is arguing to the contrary. On the other hand, although there are all kinds of democratic structures, the levels of directness of democracy vary widely. For example, the parliamentary second chambers of some of our European partners are not directly elected but are composed of people elected in a different way. I am not arguing that that is not so. Those chambers are not directly elected, but they are representative of both local authorities and stakeholders more widely in the region.
	Local authority members represent their local authority on the regional planning board. Members from other stakeholder groups such as business or the voluntary sector will equally speak up for the interests they represent. They will have been put there through some kind of process for the particular body concerned. However, that is not democratic in the sense that we understand the term, at a local government ballot box. Nevertheless, they are there as a voice to ensure that we have the widest possible sounding board for the region. I think that that is legitimate.
	Through legislation and guidance we are ensuring that everyone in the region with an interest can get involved in the regional planning process. There will be consultation, representations and, in all but the most exceptional circumstances, an examination in public conducted by an independent panel. For the first time we are requiring rather than encouraging consultation while the draft revision of the regional spatial strategy is being prepared. Ultimately, the regional spatial strategy is the Secretary of State's document and he is democratically accountable for it to the electorate and to the other place.
	We have heard that we must delay our reforms—a point put by one or two noble Lords—until the elected regional assemblies are in place. However, knowing the process being undertaken, anyone who makes that case should realise that such a move will simply delay putting into place the more effective planning system that we so urgently need. Planning Bills are not often considered by Parliament but are a double-decade opportunity. Currently there are too many plans and too much confusion. Our reforms will produce a simpler, faster and more flexible system that creates plans and delivers policies at the right level. They are the right thing to do and it is about time that we made the changes.
	On referendums, which I mentioned already, we have not yet set dates for the other regions. We clearly stated why we have not set dates when we debated the previous legislation. We have made it clear, however, that a referendum will be held in a region if there is sufficient interest in holding one. These amendments are a recipe for muddle because there is no guarantee that referendums will be held in a particular region. There would be different structures for plan making between areas with elected regional assemblies and those without. In short, we believe that our planning reforms will produce a simpler and more comprehensible system and that these amendments would just cause more confusion.
	Where an elected regional assembly is established—where there is a successful referendum; and legislation will be introduced in Parliament if there is a successful vote in one of the three regions—it is unarguably right that it should take over responsibility for regional planning. However, we should not conflate that with reform of the planning system. That reform needs to happen now. We cannot wait for such reform until the creation of elected regional assemblies, if that is what the people in those regions decide. As I said, the matter depends very much on the choice of people in those regions.
	The assemblies may come to pass or they may not. However, our planning reforms—I plead with the Committee—should not be dependent on decisions which will be taken for wholly different reasons. These reforms stand on their own. Although they may be connected to the reform and election of regional government, for heaven's sake, given the current difficulties with the planning system, they should not be dependent on that. I therefore hope that the amendments will not be pressed.

Baroness Hamwee: When asked how long I thought debate on Amendment No. 1 would take I said one hour. I shall therefore try not to extend the debate.
	The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, and the Minister both used the word "wrecking" but then rowed back a little. This is not intended as a wrecking amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, described a body with its heart and soul in the region as the body to take responsibility for these matters. I wholly agree. Unfortunately, the criteria for the designation of regional planning bodies do not use that sort of language.
	If there is no elected assembly then the Government's proposals will not be the way to go. If the Committee accepts the amendment some matters of detail will have to be considered. If the amendment is not accepted, a great deficit in the first part of the Bill will have to be addressed at the next stage. I did not try to rewrite the whole Bill for the Committee stage.
	The main point is that there seems to be nothing to prevent the current regional planning guidance involving people in the region and becoming much more effective. That could trickle down in the way that the Minister says the Bill will allow. The Government themselves say that they will "save" structure plans for three years. So do we not have to an opportunity to get this right? In the Minister's presentation it seems that convenience overrides the issues of democracy and accountability to which so many noble Lords have referred.
	The Minister suggested that noble Lords had perhaps based their arguments on a misunderstanding of how planning works, by ignoring the issues of development control and of dealing with individual planning applications. As the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, said, he did indeed deal with that. Furthermore, Clause 18—the provision that deals with local development—says that the local development document "must have regard to" the regional spatial strategy for the region. Is it not verging on the disingenuous to suggest that the regional spatial strategy has nothing to do with how planning applications are dealt with? From the moment that the Green Paper was introduced many practitioners said that many problems could be dealt with without primary legislation. I suggest that this is one area where we do not need to take the drastic steps that the Minister is asking us to agree.
	The Minister said that the proposed regional planning body needs to be sufficiently inclusive. It is up to the electors to decide who should represent them through that body. Regulation 4 of the draft regulations states:
	"The criteria prescribed for the purposes of"—
	the relevant clause of the Bill—
	"are that . . . at least 30 per cent of the members of the RPB are not also members of a relevant authority".
	This provision divorces the electorate from the body that is going to take the decisions.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that we should be prepared to fight certain battles. This is not just a bone of contention, as the Minister described it; it is fundamental. This is a battle that we are prepared to fight. I should like to test the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 158; Not-Contents, 137.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	Clause 1 [Regional Spatial Strategy]:

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 1, line 6, at end insert—
	"( ) The RSS shall include a statement of community involvement."

Lord Hanningfield: After the excitement of the previous debate one may have to change some of one's speaking notes regarding other amendments. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response.
	This is the first amendment that I shall move on this legislation. I look forward to working with the Minister and the Committee to try to improve the Bill. At Second Reading two weeks ago the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, pointed out that the Bill received a drumming. It has also received a drumming as a result of the first amendment on which we have just divided.
	It is important to keep stressing the message that this legislation could ruin our planning system. As some noble Lords mentioned at Second Reading, this legislation will break up a planning system of which we should be proud. We agree with speeding up the planning process but not with throwing out the baby at the same time as the bath water.
	During the past few weeks I have had many meetings with many professional organisations. There is widespread consensus that, if we are not careful, in three years or so a new Bill will be presented that is designed to sort out the problems caused by the one that we are discussing. It is important that the Government listen to the arguments now. It is all too easy to upset the balance between democracy and efficiency. It is all too easy to call the planning system old and deny its many strengths in order to put something new in its place simply for the sake of newness. However, it will be much harder to undo any damage to the planning system once it has been done.
	On Second Reading I said that it would be much better to reform the current system—I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, also mentioned that—than to throw the whole thing up in the air. However, as we are where we are in the legislative process regarding this Bill, it is incumbent upon us all, regardless of our political hue, to do what we can to prevent the emasculation of the democratic element within the planning system.
	We must be aware of paying lip service to democracy and community participation while casting these out with the county structure plans. We debated that matter just now. People must have a voice in planning decisions and those decisions must be made at as local a level as possible. The regional planning bodies must not simply be branch offices of Whitehall doing the Secretary of State's bidding.
	Amendment No. 2 would require the Government to put on the face of the Bill a measure to ensure that regional spatial strategies include statements of community involvement. The purpose of having such a statement of community involvement in each regional spatial strategy is threefold but each element is fundamentally aimed at addressing the democratic deficit that lies at the heart of this Bill. First, a statement of community involvement would ensure that the regional planning body must engage with the community that it serves. Planning authorities must make decisions that serve the people of an area; that is, decisions that are representative of those people. If regional spatial strategies do not include statements of community involvement, we shall have no mechanism by which to relate plans to the people they serve.
	Statements of community involvement must establish minimum standards that regional planning bodies will have to meet in order to have any democratic legitimacy whatever through the regional spatial strategies. Without those minimum standards many potential problems threaten to emerge. People may feel that regional spatial strategies are irrelevant to them as they have no input or stake in their preparation. They may feel quite legitimately that their democratic right to express their concerns about development has been taken away. Local people will inevitably feel frustrated if they perceive that unwelcome planning decisions have been foisted on them by the Secretary of State or a regional planning body located miles away.
	The second purpose of including statements of community involvement in regional spatial strategies, and following on from the first, is that they will allow a more general scrutiny and accountability of regional planning bodies. Through the statement of community involvement it will become apparent if a regional planning body is able to involve the community in the decision-making process in a meaningful way, let alone whether it is doing it well. People have the right to know how the RPG can affect public decisions that affect their lives.
	The third purpose of the amendment is that it will make a new planning system fairer and more consistent. Clause 17 requires local planning authorities to prepare statements of community involvement. How can the Minister justify the current logic of the Bill whereby local authorities must work out how they will engage their communities, while regional planning bodies are under no such obligation?
	The Minister will be aware of the research conducted by the Local Government Association in September/October 2002. It asked planning authorities if it would be easy for regional spatial bodies to secure meaningful community involvement in regional planning—95 per cent of planning authorities said it would not be easy. Lest there should be any suspicion of counties wishing to do down regions, counties constituted less than 10 per cent of respondents to the survey. My speech could be changed following the debate on Amendment No. 1, but we are still possibly going to have regional spatial strategies in those elected regions and we have a long way to go on the Bill, so I wish to pursue my arguments. Among the experts and those currently involved in delivering planning locally, there is real concern about how community involvement will be achieved.
	Those three reasons that I have outlined in some detail on this important part of the Bill are crucial to securing greater community participation and democratic accountability in the planning process. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we also have Amendment No. 59 in the group. It approaches the matter in a slightly different way, but they have the same objectives. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, provides for a statement of community interest to be included in the regional spatial strategy. We suggest that a statement of community involvement and consultation—the first of the subsections—is part of the process in moving towards a regional spatial strategy. But the thrust is much the same.
	At a regional level I acknowledge it is more difficult to ensure that all necessary views are collected, but that does not mean that there is no responsibility to do so. I prefer to think of such matters in terms of participation, because planning is one of the activities of governance. Like other such activities it requires public trust, credibility and support. The "experts" cannot know it all. Indeed, sustainable development and sustainability are unachievable without public involvement, because changes of attitude and behaviour are fundamental to sustainability. We all need to think of "we" and "our" responsibilities, not "they". It all takes time and effort, but that is well spent.
	The draft consultation on PPS 11 includes an annex on community involvement. I hope that the Government are open to that. I am sure they are, because all Ministers know that in any subject the more participation from interested people, the better the outcome. If the Government support that approach then why not put it on the face of the Bill?

Lord Judd: One can ponder on whether the amendments are helpful or not in their precise wording, but I hope that in responding to them my noble friend will not dismiss out of hand the thinking behind them. If one is to make a success of this new strategic approach, and I want to see the policy succeed, it is essential that the maximum good will is generated among those who carry the relevant responsibilities.
	We all know how life develops in the public sphere. If people are not involved, there is a tendency for energy, commitment and professionalism to go into the negative rejectionist mode, instead of endorsing what is proposed. I hope that in all that is done and put forward, there will be a real drive to generate a momentum of public good will and involvement.
	In saying that, I should declare an interest. I am an active vice-president of the Council for National Parks and a member of the north-west regional committee of the National Trust. I am also a supporter of various environmental agencies such as CPRE. Therefore, I hope—not because of my involvement in those agencies but because of the argument I put forward—that my noble friend will be able to make reassuring comments in relation to these amendments.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I was not present at Second Reading of the Bill, but I believe that no one quoted that memorable observation of the Deputy Prime Minister in the early stages of the previous Parliament in the context of the decision relating to Stevenage. In effect, he said of the administration that the green belt was the achievement of a Labour government and that they proposed to build on it.
	I am the first to acknowledge that that should not be taken literally, but its spirit is bound to have aroused the suspicions of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the Minister must allow for us being vigilant during the passage of this Bill.
	My suspicions are prompted by a further consideration. I was a veteran of the Commons Committee stage of the Greater London Authority Bill, as I told the Minister yesterday. The Mayor was responsible for ensuring the setting out of a large number of strategies. During the deliberations, I asked Glenda Jackson, who was at that stage leading for the Government, what would happen if the strategies were in conflict with each other. She memorably replied that they could not be because the Bill prevented them from being so. That did not seem to me to be a certain consequence of the relationship between human beings and legislation. I am wholly in support of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Hanningfield to ensure a degree of restraint and contribution by electors within the regions concerned if the Bill were to become law.

Lord Plumb: I support my noble friend's amendment for many reasons. I have not today heard anyone refer to the areas of outstanding natural beauty. Those areas and their representatives are many. I declare an interest as president of the Cotswolds AONB and there are 17 local authority members. In addition, some 40 park wardens, all voluntary, work successfully in the areas in monitoring the activities there and the people who wish to visit such a wonderful part of the world. Those people need to be consulted because they are on the ground and are concerned.
	I am concerned that on reading the Bill there appears to be some superimposing of yet another tier to govern the existing bodies. The areas of outstanding natural beauty, and that in which I have an interest, have with a good deal of support been built up over a short time. I remember saying at our first meeting, over which I was presiding, that it was remarkable that the representatives of some 17 local authorities were all in agreement.
	They were in agreement on a matter of concern to them all and they are the people who really matter. Adding words to the Bill which would make it clear that full consultation must take place would be effective and would demonstrate to those concerned that they are to be consulted and involved.

Lord Bridges: As the noble Lord referred to areas of outstanding natural beauty, perhaps I may draw to his attention my Amendment No. 36 and three others which address the issue. I hope he will be able to support me on them.

Lord Rooker: The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, spoke of vigilance. If I were on the Back Benches, I would be watching myself here very carefully! That may be a Spoonerism, but I agree with him. There is no point of disagreement whatever. Furthermore, there is no departure between us on our aims. The Bill puts forward proposals for meeting those, together with background material, but there is no question that the involvement of the communities means that better quality decisions are reached. That is fundamental.
	I shall deal with Amendments Nos. 2 and 59 together. I agree with all noble Lords that those with an interest in what the revised regional spatial strategy will look like should be consulted while it is being prepared. The regional planning body should from the very beginning plan for community involvement throughout the process. Perhaps the point of difference is how much we put on the face of the Bill and what is put in regulations and guidance. In terms of principle and practicality, there is no difference between us.
	I want to remind the House of our existing proposals for community involvement in the context of the regional spatial strategies—

Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for giving way. He said that the regional planning bodies would be responsible for preparing the regional spatial strategy. Will he point me to the place where that is stated in the Bill?

Lord Rooker: Someone will give me a note and I will then answer the noble Baroness's question. It is not relevant to the point I am about to make, but it is a relevant point overall. There is a procedure which we explained yesterday to noble Lords who attended the meeting with me at which officials were present to answer some of the technical issues. I made it clear that that will happen, but at some point today I will explain the connection and how one will become the other. The answer is fairly straightforward, but I do not want to get it wrong off the top of my head.
	Perhaps I may remind the House of our existing proposals for community involvement. In addition to the duty we are placing on the regional planning body to seek advice from counties and other authorities with strategic planning expertise in Clause 4, we are placing extensive statutory duties on the regional planning body to consult in secondary legislation. The question is how much will be on the face of the Bill and how much in secondary legislation and other guidance.
	Under the draft regulations to Part 1, to which reference has been made—

Lord Hanningfield: Perhaps I may pose a question. Why are the Government putting on the face of the Bill a statutory duty for local authorities, district councils and so forth but not for the regional planning bodies? If the duty should be in the Bill for one section, why not for the other? That seems logical.

Lord Rooker: That is the point that I shall explain. We do not disagree with the principle or practicality of the consultation. The question relates to what is in the Bill as opposed to how it comes about in a statutory way. I shall explain that and, because it is important for those outside who watch our proceedings, I shall stick fairly closely to the briefing. Therefore, I shall go back and start that paragraph again.
	Under the draft regulations to Part 1 of the Bill, the regional planning body will have a duty to consult certain bodies while preparing the draft revision of the regional spatial strategy. To the extent that the regional planning body considers that it is affected by the revision, the RPB must consult a specific list of bodies—for example, county councils in or adjoining the region, local planning authorities in or adjoining the region, regional planning bodies for adjoining regions, and regional development agencies for the region and adjoining ones.
	To the extent that it considers it appropriate to do so, at this stage the regional planning body must also consult organisations that represent the interests of particular groups; for example, voluntary sector bodies—exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, stated—ethnic minority communities or, indeed, businesses.
	When the regional planning body publishes the draft revision of the regional spatial strategy, it must consult both the bodies that it has consulted during the preparation of the draft and any other bodies and persons which it thinks may wish to make representations.
	Although they are too detailed to be set out on the face of the Bill, those statutory requirements are just the bare bones of what we expect to see in terms of consultation and community involvement.
	The draft planning policy statement on regional planning—PPS11—sets out what that consultation should and could look like as initial ideas and options are turned into firm proposals. It will involve more than sending out draft documents and collating responses. We expect the counties and other bodies with strategic planning expertise to be closely involved or to take the lead on sub-regional studies or other work that will underpin the draft revision of the regional spatial strategy.
	To involve the community more widely, planning policy statement 11 suggests that the regional planning body holds workshops or seminars across topics and themes in the review. Once the regional planning body has identified a preliminary list of issues for the revision, it should hold a one-day public conference to seek agreement that the issues identified are the right ones. It should consider establishing a group, chaired and comprised of people from outside the regional planning body and local authorities to be consulted at key milestones as the draft regional spatial strategy emerges.
	The regional planning body should plan for consultation and community involvement from the very beginning. PPS11 requires the regional planning body, as part of its project plan for the regional spatial strategy revision, to set out how it will involve the community throughout. That involvement needs to be documented. Draft regulations place a duty on the regional planning body to submit to the Secretary of State, at the same time as the draft revision of the regional spatial strategy, a statement setting out how it has consulted stakeholders in the revision process and how the issues raised have been addressed in the draft revision document. That can be compared with what it said it would do in the project plan.

Lord Avebury: Perhaps I may—

Lord Rooker: If I may just complete this part, I shall be glad to give way to the noble Lord. In testing the soundness of the regional spatial strategy, the extent of community involvement and stakeholder participation will both be taken into account in the panel's examination of the draft revision. The Secretary of State could reject the revision if he was not satisfied that it had been properly prepared.
	We believe that that all adds up to a comprehensive package of community involvement in the regional planning process, with checks in place to ensure that it does take place. Given the way in which it will be carried out, we do not consider that a statutory statement would add value, bearing in mind the process that we are to undertake. I shall now gladly give way to the noble Lord.

Lord Avebury: Some of what the Minister has described is set out in draft planning policy statement 11 on regional planning. However, there is one point on which I should be grateful to receive the Minister's advice. The document states that, after discussing community involvement, as the noble Lord outlined, the RPB may also wish to consider the likely cost to participants and whether there is any scope for it or other stakeholders to provide financial support for community and voluntary groups in order to assist their ability to participate in the process. Does the Minister agree that that should not be discretionary and that, if one is to involve communities in the way that he described—I approve of everything that he has said thus far—there must be some financial burden on the RPB to assist that process?

Lord Rooker: I wholly agree with the point that the noble Lord makes. The short answer is that that is one reason why the Government have increased substantially the funding available for planning aid. This is a genuine issue. Off the top of my head I do not know what the figures are, but we have substantially increased the funds available for planning aid and for organisations in order to help in the exact circumstances identified by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
	Perhaps I may complete this part of my answer and I shall then turn to the points raised by the noble Baroness. I hope that it is fair to say that we need to get away from assuming that what is right at a local level might also be right at a regional level—that is, in terms of simple replication. A regional spatial strategy is a different document with a very different purpose from a local plan. To begin with, it will not be site-specific. The regional spatial strategy sets out the strategic framework for the region, and the local plan documents detail which sites should be developed. There is no reason why two such different documents should be subject to the same procedures in their preparation. However, in any event, community involvement is fairly important.
	The statutory statement of community involvement is a case in point. Although it would not be valuable at a regional level, it would be valuable at a local level in setting out clearly for the local community how it would be involved in a plan-making process that might affect what its neighbourhood would look like in the years ahead. Local plans are literally much closer to home—that must be accepted—and the community has a far more direct stake in the process. Of course, members of the community may have an interest and want an input into the strategic policies in the regional plan. I go back to what the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, said and the example that he gave of 17 local authorities in one area. Those policies would not be site-specific, but the communities would be absolutely entitled to be consulted right at the beginning and throughout the process.
	In principle, there is no argument at all between us in terms of what happens at the local and regional levels. It is a question of how much detail would be on the face of the Bill, bearing in mind that some of that detail would be statutory—that is, in secondary legislation. I cannot recall whether the procedure would be affirmative or negative. However, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships' House will bring forward suitable amendments to meet those recommendations in due course. I can say that now, without having the detailed report in front of me.
	I have a list of the bodies which the regulations would require the regional planning body to consult. I shall place that list on the record, first, because it is important and, secondly, so that there is no doubt about the detailed attention that we intend to pay to this issue. Earlier, I gave a summary of the list but I shall now give it in full.
	To the extent that the regional planning body considers that the draft revision affects a body, the RPB must consult: a local planning authority, any part of whose area is in or adjoins the RPB's region; a county council, any part of whose area is in or adjoins the RPB's region; a parish council, any part of whose area is in or adjoins the RPB's region; the regional planning body for each adjoining region; the Countryside Agency; the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England; English Nature; the Environment Agency; the Strategic Rail Authority; a regional development agency whose area is in or adjoins the regional planning board's region; any strategic health authority which exercises functions in the region; and any telecoms and infrastructure service provider which exercises functions in the region.
	The RPB should also consult, as it thinks appropriate: voluntary bodies, some or all of whose activities benefit any part of the region; bodies that represent the interests of different racial, ethnic or national groups in the region; bodies that represent the interests of different religious groups in the region; bodies that represent the interests of disabled persons in the region; and bodies that represent the interests of persons carrying on business in the region.
	Once the lawyers get to work on that list, it covers an incredible spread of opinion. Most organisations will fit one of those criteria because they will be found to have an interest in the region. It is just a question of what we put in the Bill. I agree that the Bill is too long and already too detailed. That is always a difficulty, and one draws a compromise. In this case, there will be regulations and secondary legislation.

Lord Sheppard of Didgemere: I understand the Minister saying that the Bill already covers the community involvement issue; therefore there cannot be much incremental work. I therefore cannot understand why he resists the small number of words in the amendment; they at least would demonstrate that we support democracy upfront in Clause 1.

Lord Judd: My noble friend has encouraged us to watch his back. I assure him—and he knows—that I am not watching his back with any sense of hostility on the issue. I have the feeling that he shares our concern and our objectives and it is a matter of how we get right the Bill's wording. It is good to have a Minister with such sensitivity.
	Does my noble friend agree that the trouble with illustrative lists is that the organisations that do not appear on the list inevitably hold some significance? I refer to my interests on the previous amendment: for example, there are two organisations—the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, referred to areas of outstanding natural beauty, but I refer also to the national parks—that have tremendous responsibility on behalf of the nation, not simply the local community, for protecting and enhancing those assets for the nation as a whole.
	I listened carefully—I have a problem with my hearing; however, I do not think that this was due to it—but I heard neither the areas of outstanding natural beauty nor the national parks mentioned in the illustrative lists the Minister gave. I hope that he can say something from the Government Front Bench to the effect that those specific bodies, which carry terrific responsibility, will be consulted in the development of any strategies.

Lord Rooker: It is not my job to make policy at the Dispatch Box; I am not the planning Minister, but the answer has to be yes. There is no question about that. They may fit the descriptions I have given—frankly I would have thought that they do. They may fit under the definition of local authorities; the national parks are planning authorities, so they are probably defined in the law—I see the Liberal Democrats nodding, so apparently I have got it right off the top of my head.
	So while I am not making policy on my feet, the answer to my noble friend's question must be "yes". We do not have a point of principle or difference between us.

Lord Sheppard of Didgemere: Will the Minister answer my question: therefore, why does he resist the amendment?

Lord Rooker: I was about to utter the immortal words, which are not on my brief: we will consider the matter. If anything has been missed out, that is no good because it undervalues what I have said. We need to be clear. As we are in Committee stage and at the moment the score is "county councils 1, Government 0", I will go back to the Deputy Prime Minister and Mr Keith Hill, the planning Minister, who proved to be good listening Ministers following the drubbing the Bill received on Second Reading. After Second Reading, we tabled massive amendments to Clause 4, to consider the matter and see whether we could accommodate the points I have made without adding masses of extra pages to the Bill.
	In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, the Bill does not say that the regional planning board is to prepare the regional spatial strategy. The Bill creates the regional spatial strategies from the existing regional planning guidances under Clause 1. I do not have the Bill in front of me, but there is a redefinition that one instrument becomes the new instrument. As we explained yesterday, that was done so that there are not great delays that take years. We take the existing regional planning guidance, which becomes the regional spatial strategy. Its revision in due course will be covered by many of the points I made earlier.
	There cannot possibly be a case for pressing the amendment on the basis of what I have said. I hope that we can move on to the next debate with a degree of goodwill.

Baroness Hanham: Could I challenge the Minister a little further? I accept that the regional planning guidances will be at least part of the regional spatial strategy, but it does not say anywhere that they will be all of it. A number of discussions will ensue to shed light on what is involved in the regional spatial strategy.
	It seems more than a little relevant that the regional planning board is responsible. The Bill does not say that it will do anything that the Minister said in his response. Clauses 2 and 3 give the RPB some general functions and say that it must keep the regional spatial strategy and the development of its regions under review and it must monitor and implement. It does not say anything about producing or about being responsible for the original implementation of the regional spatial strategy.
	The regional planning bodies are being given a lacuna under the Minister's reply—I accept that the provision is in guidance, but it is not written in the Bill. Too often we rely on what goes into Hansard to justify the Bill and people have to go rummaging around to find the reference, when one subsection under Clause 1 would simply say that the regional planning body is responsible for introducing and implementing the regional spatial strategy. That is the reality of the situation, as the Minister indicated.
	I am happy for the Minister not to reply tonight and to receive his reply at a later stage, but it would be helpful not only to us here, who are steeped in Bills and sentences and what people say. It is when it goes beyond here that we need to make clear what it is all about. I ask the Minister to review that provision and to ensure that we may return to it by putting it into a clause if he does not respond quickly. It is an important issue.
	While I am on my feet, I declare the appropriate interests, such as being a member of a local authority and a member of a local planning committee, so that that is understood from the outset.

Lord Rooker: The declaration of interests in this place has always been a mystery to me. They are peculiar and I do not see why they have to be declared. I do not think that one has to apologise in this place for being a member of a local authority, but an apology is almost what a declaration of interest amounts to here. It has nothing to do with the Bill.
	I have had a note that might help the noble Baroness. If there are any lacunas we will consider them. There will be nothing in the regional spatial strategy that is not in the regional planning guidance, but some parts of the existing regional planning guidance will not become the regional spatial strategy. It will be that way round. I am not sure about the mechanism for transferring one to the other; it may just be a direction. We will clear up those issues during the Bill's passage.

Lord Avebury: The Minister said that the existing regional planning guidance becomes the RSS, except for those parts that they decide to strike out. Could that be embodied in Clause 1(2)? Instead of giving the Secretary of State carte blanche to implement whatever policies he likes in the RSS, it could limit him to such of those policies as are embodied in the regional planning guidance at the moment when the Bill comes into effect, or something similar.

Lord Rooker: That sounds okay, but I think that my right honourable friends might have a problem with that, simply because the process of achieving regional planning guidance is one where there is a prescribed set of procedures which the Secretary of State has to ensure that he follows. So, I do not think that that will be a runner. However, it is a suggestion made in Committee and we shall consider it.

Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Lord responds on his amendment, perhaps I should remind my noble friends, if no one else, of the amendment to which the Committee agreed a few moments ago. I for one will not roll over, accept this and say, "We know that this will be undone at the other end when the Bill goes back there". Clearly, there are knock-on effects as to who creates the regional spatial strategy, which, as I have said before, for reasons of practicality have not been addressed in all our amendments.
	Perhaps I may add briefly to what has been said. If there is no reference on the face of the Bill to a statement of community involvement as regards the regional spatial strategy but there is, and I welcome it, as regards local development, it must be implicit that less weight is attached to it—even though it is spelt out at 15-page length in guidance—if it does not appear in primary legislation.

Lord Hanningfield: As regards the amendment I moved a few moments ago and the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he pointed out what might be in secondary legislation and for going through all the consultees, and so forth.
	The fact that this is not on the face of the Bill is worrying. When we refer to regional spatial strategies, often we are referring to numbers of houses within a community. The Minister knows very well—earlier, he declared my interest as leader of Essex County Council rather than me having to do that—that I am involved in two particular areas: the M11 corridor and the Thames Gateway, where considerable amounts of housing and infrastructure development are planned. To say that the region would not consult and involve those communities in that area—my noble friend referred in the earlier debate to his involvement in a discussion on development in the region—is disappointing. We are not talking about many words here. To repeat what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, if it is included for local authorities why not for the regional spatial strategy?
	We have heard what the Minister said and we shall read and consider it. But this is an issue to which we might have to return. However, I hope that the Minister will think again and include these few words in the Bill. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Greaves: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Page 1, line 6, at end insert—
	"( ) The RSS shall consist of—
	(a) a concise strategic framework for the spatial dimension of Government policies in delivering and maintaining sustainable economies, communities and environment in that region, including other regional strategies and programmes that have a bearing on the use of land such as (but not limited to) the regional economic strategy, the regional housing strategy and the regional cultural strategy;
	(b) the regional transport strategy;
	(c) policy and general proposals in respect of the development and other use of land in that region (including measures for the improvement of the physical environment and the management of traffic); and
	(d) such other matters as may be prescribed."

Lord Greaves: The subject of Amendment No. 3 has been trespassed upon in a debate on the previous grouping. The same question arises as to what should be on the face of the Bill and what we should leave unsaid and assume will come out all right in the wash when all the guidance, instruments, and so forth are produced.
	Regional spatial strategy is a relatively new phrase. It is used with increasing frequency and is at the very heart of the Bill. Yet nowhere in the Bill does it state what is meant by those three words. The purpose of tabling the amendment is partly to tease out from the Government what is meant by regional spatial strategy but also why it should not be set out clearly on the face of the Bill as previous planning legislation sets out, for example, the scope of a structure plan and other elements of the planning system.
	The regional spatial strategy has been explained in various documents, in particular the annex to RPG11 and the information in PPS11, in other explanatory information and in interesting comments by the Minister. It is clear that the RSS will consist of two things which eventually will be the legacy of the two elements that will go into the RSS at the very beginning. The first is the regional planning guidance. In the debate on the previous grouping the Minister explained which parts of the RPG will become the bulk of the temporary RSS, the transitional RSS. The second part will be the successor to the existing structure plans in the case of county councils and to those parts of the unitary development plans in the case of unitary local government.
	There are two clear sections to RSS. At the beginning they will be very obviously separate and different. It seems to me inevitable that that will continue to be the case even after the revisions have taken place. Therefore, we should set out what the RSS consists of. I do not claim that the words I suggest are the last words in perfection. But I have set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) what seems to me to be a concise summary of what the Government have stated in RPG11 and PPS11 will be in the RSS.
	Paragraphs (c) and (d) contain the wording that applies to structure plans in the 1990 Act, with a little missed off the end. In other words, the Government state that this is what the RSS will consist of as it becomes the transformation of the RPG; this is what the RSS will consist of in so far as it will take on immediately the existing structure plans and, in due course, those structure plans will be turned into sub-regional strategic planning documents. That, as far as I understand, is how it will work.
	Having read much of the Bill, much of the documentation and listened to the Minister, I am increasingly surprised that he claims that this will be a simplification of the system and will reduce the number of layers and complications. The more we look into it, the more complicated the whole issue seems to be.
	I tabled the amendment to ask the Government, first, why the definition of RSS, which is so important and so fundamental to the Bill, should not be on the face of the Bill and, secondly, to probe as to how, once the transitional phase is over and we have the RSSs in all their new super-efficient up-to-date glory, they will differ from existing regional planning guidance. Obviously they will differ in detail, but how will they differ in scope and style, in so far as they refer to sub-regional strategic planning, from the existing structure plans?
	The more I read about this, the more it seems to be about process. However, in 10 years' time the documents will not differ much from existing structure plans; they will just have been put together by different people in a different process. In the case of Lancashire, for example, if the North West planning body decided to appoint Lancashire County Council as its agent for sub-regional planning in Lancashire, which would be sensible and practical, the documents will be put together by the same people, the only difference being the political accountability. So how will RSSs differ on those two levels and why should this not be on the face of the Bill? I beg to move.

Lord Cobbold: Amendment No. 7 stands in my name and is grouped with Amendment No. 3. It addresses the same basic point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves—what should be on the face of the Bill? We both believe that the Bill needs to be more specific about the issues that should be covered by the RSS. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has provided a detailed list of appropriate topics. My amendment is more concise, which should appeal to the Minister. It simply proposes the specific inclusion of major transport and infrastructure provisions. It seems to me that the reference in Clause 1(2) to development and use of land within a region is too vague. It does not seem necessarily to cover major regional planning issues such as motorway or trunk road construction and airport development. These are of major strategic importance at regional level. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Lord Judd: When the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, moved his amendment, he said the objective was to tease out more information from my noble friend. I rather took it from that that this amendment would not be pressed to a Division. I hope that in replying to the interesting observations made from the Liberal Democrat Benches and the Cross Benches the Minister will say in the context of this debate what I have heard him say powerfully on other occasions; that is, that one of the key planning purposes in our overcrowded, over-stressed society is the enhancement of the countryside and not simply for the benefit of those living there. Psychologically and physically it is absolutely indispensable for the health and well-being of the whole nation. Will the Minister say authoritatively that all that is being done shows the Government's determination to ensure that this rich resource—the countryside—is enhanced as an asset for the nation?

Viscount Ullswater: On this occasion I rise to help the Minister by opposing the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said that it is a probing amendment. I hope he will take my remarks in the spirit in which they are made. I have always accepted that there should be regional planning guidance. Such guidance has informed the making of local plans and structure plans for many years and has been extremely successful. In another life I was Minister for Planning and therefore had a certain responsibility. I have already expressed my opposition to a statutory body such as the RSS without an elected assembly but I recognise that it is restrictive to put such constraints on the face of the Bill, as this amendment seeks to do. I hope that the Minister may find a way of writing into the Bill the fact that the RSSs will be the embodiment of RPGs instead of us having to rely on his words in Hansard. That would help the construction of the Bill and also your Lordships' understanding of it.

Baroness Maddock: Perhaps I may ask the Minister about one issue included in my noble friend's amendment. I refer to the regional housing strategies which are the responsibility of regional housing boards. Can the Minister explain either now or later exactly how he sees them tapping into this structure?

Lord Avebury: I should like to ask a question before the Minister comes to reply. I have read carefully the passages under the heading, "What is an RSS?" in the Consultation Paper on Draft Planning Policy, Statement 11. I see nothing in there about the specific question of wind power which has been quite controversial. Many applications for planning permission for wind turbines on land have been turned down on environmental grounds. While I accept entirely what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that the primary objective of the RSS should be the enhancement of the countryside, I do suggest to the Minister that there are many areas, which are neither areas of outstanding natural beauty nor national parks, where wind farms would be perfectly suitable. I say that in the context of agriculture in this country. The primary agricultural purpose of land has become unprofitable. Many farmers are looking to alternative ways of making money. In upland areas, one of them could be the use of land no longer suitable for sheep. Unless there is something in the RSS which specifically refers to it, will not local authorities continue to be as negative as they have been in the past?

Lord Rooker: I do not know the answer to the noble Lord's question except that I was minded to look into the Moses Room where the Energy Bill is being discussed. That would be my immediate reaction. On the point that he raises, I have no doubt that I will get a note to help me to respond.
	To respond to what my noble friend Lord Judd said, the Bill deals only with certain aspects of changes. As I said in my closing speech at Second Reading, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is working to a master plan—the Sustainable Communities Plan published on 5 February last year. We make it clear that we are interested only in sustainable developments. We want to redevelop the cities to make them living bodies. My noble friend Lord Rogers of Riverside said on Second Reading that the only real sustainable community is in a city. The other side of the coin is that the countryside is protected. It stops the flight from city to countryside if cities are good for living, working and quality of life.
	In the Sustainable Communities Plan there is a map on Page 43 which I have used many times at various meetings. It shows the amount of land in England covered by national parks, green belt, and areas of outstanding natural beauty. You can superimpose the urban areas. It is an interesting set of statistics. We have to be very careful. What we have said is that in building sustainable communities, particularly in growth areas, we may have to impinge on certain parts of the green belt. However, we intend to grow it and leave more statutory green belt than we started with. We have already done this. There are an additional 30,000 hectares of green belt land now compared with 1997. I realise a large part is in one area of the country but nevertheless it is statutory and far bigger than it was. I would also say that green belt is not the same as AONBs. Most green belt serves as a buffer around urban areas. It is not land of high visual quality; it is purely designed to stop cities and towns joining up, which is quite right. But green belt and AONB are not the same thing and are separate from the statutory national parks.
	This is an important issue. Quite obviously noble Lords are testing the Bill to discover the Government's thinking behind these issues which legislation in the form of a Bill does not always set out. I shall try to set out our thinking and also address the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. Somewhere in my notes is a reference to regional housing boards and I can definitely say that I will cover the noble Baroness's point.
	Amendment No. 3 would amend Clause 1(1) to provide that the RSS must consist of the following: first, a concise strategic framework for the spatial dimension of government policies in delivering and maintaining sustainable economies, communities and environment in the region. That would include other regional strategies and programmes that have a bearing on the use of land, such as the regional economic strategy, the housing strategy and the cultural strategy.
	Secondly, it should include the regional transport strategy. Thirdly, it should set out the policy and general proposals in respect of the development and other use of land in the region, including measures for the improvement of the physical environment and the management of traffic. Finally, it should include any other matters that are prescribed.
	Amendment No. 7 of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, would amend Clause 1(2) to provide that, among other things, the regional spatial strategy must set out the Secretary of State's policies for major transport and infrastructure provision in the region.
	By what I have said previously, I hope the Committee can agree that the Government concur with much of what is said in the amendments concerning the content of an RSS. We differ on whether it needs to be set out on the face of the Bill rather than in policy pronouncements and guidance and, if necessary, in regulations.
	Paragraph 1.3 of draft planning policy statement 11 makes clear that the RSS should set out the regional transport and major infrastructure proposals that are necessary to deliver the strategy set out in the RSS. Detailed policy and guidance on what the regional transport strategy should contain are set out in Annex B to the document.
	It is crucial that the RSS sets out the regional transport and major infrastructure priorities. In issuing an RSS the Secretary of State will endorse the principle of these proposals as he sees appropriate, taking full account of the report of the panel following the examination in public into the draft proposals. There will then be an opportunity for people to make representations on the precise location of these proposals through the normal statutory routes. The procedures for doing so include a planning inquiry, a highways inquiry and an inquiry into a Transport and Works Act order.
	The RSS must be careful not to stray into such site-specific proposals and thereby subvert these statutory procedures and the safeguards they provide.
	So, we want to emphasise the role of the RSS in relation to establishing regional priorities. Proposals of national importance need to be considered at the national rather than the regional level. The principle of the need for nationally important proposals will have been established not in an RSS but rather—for example—in a White Paper or in debate in this Chamber. A good recent example that I have used elsewhere is the airports document. The Bill changes how major infrastructure inquiries will be dealt with, but the key to making that change is a clear statement of policy by government on what the issue is—whether it be airports or other matters. So that is necessary; otherwise, the system will not work.
	I turn now to the detail of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. Paragraph 1.3 of draft PPS11 makes clear that the RSS should provide a broad development strategy for at least a 15-year period. It goes on to state that the RSS should, among other things, identify the scale and distribution of provision for new housing and priorities for the environment, transport, infrastructure, economic development, agriculture, minerals extraction and waste treatment and disposal. I think that demonstrates that if we were to prescribe on the face of the Bill what the RSS should contain it would have to say more than the selective references to such matters as,
	"the improvement of the physical environment",
	to which the noble Lord's amendment refers.
	I say that only because otherwise the legislation is left wide open to people who wish to frustrate development or misuse the proposals. All it does is to make loads of money for the lawyers and slows down the decision-making process. Whether the decision is yes or no does not matter; it slows it down.
	Paragraph 2.8 of PPS11 makes clear that the RSS should provide the long-term planning framework for the three regional strategies—to which the noble Lord refers—and the other relevant strategies. I have already referred to the policy and guidance in PPS11 on the contents of the regional transport strategy and to the role of that strategy as an integral part of the RSS.
	There is, therefore, no issue between us of what the RSS should contain but merely where we should say it. We are not arguing on any issue of what it should contain. In our view it would be a mistake to fossilise it on the face of the Bill because we would be making references to what matters the RSS should contain, which may change in the future. This is where I turn to the example and answer the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock.
	The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, refers in his amendment to a new type of strategy introduced last year after the Bill had been introduced—the regional housing boards. Who knows what the future may hold? If we put things in great detail in primary legislation, we are making a rod for our own back with other changes that may occur in the future. There is a procedure for doing this. There is the policy and the guidance and, if necessary, the power to use regulation to make good any items that are missing or changes that have come about. So it is only a question of where the issue is written down.
	I have some specific answers to give to points raised by Members of the Committee, which I hope I can deal with adequately. The RSS is not site-specific and so would not identify areas for wind farms. It will define broad locations and criteria for wind farm development, to be taken forward by the local development framework. The RSS will plan positively for renewable energy—I think that we take that for granted—but it would not go into that detail.
	The regional housing strategy assesses the regional housing needs of the region. This is a fairly new process, which is less than a year old. It will identify housing investment priorities. The information forms the RSS, which sets out the housing requirements for which the planning authority should provide. The point was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that these issues are very delicate and sensitive, but unless there is planning we end up with sprawl, unsustainable growth and unsustainable communities and we diminish people's quality of life. Therefore, there are some tough decisions to be made.
	I hope that the noble Lord in his guise as a local government bigwig of some quality will help me with the communities plan in the growth areas. Of course, as I have told my colleagues, I am working with people of quality in this place—some more important than others—because they carry a lot of clout on the communities plan.
	I shall deal with how RSSs will be different from structure plans. Many structure plans repeat what is already national or regional policy. They do not address planning issues that cross administrative boundaries; in other words where the problems are. I explained that matter earlier. We want to explore that area in consultation. The boundaries are important but they are not the be-all and end-all. We need to reach across them. The problems stretch across the boundaries.
	It is not true that RSSs will consist of the regional planning guidance and Part 1 of the UDPs and the structure plans. RSSs will be the regional planning guidance and, through time, the sub-regional policies that are actually needed in the relevant areas. They are obviously different around the country. They will not be the same in every area. The RSSs will evolve over time. It is a question of where it is written down—it will be written down. That is the point, and I hope that I have made it clear. The issues will be written down; the question is where they are written down. They will be written down in such a way that people will not be able to avoid them. I am confident of that.

Lord Cobbold: I am not sure that I am totally happy with that response. It is important that the Bill should state some of these important issues—the Minister mentioned the airport issue, which would clearly materially affect a region if central government decided that was to be done. I feel that RSSs must take account of these major national issues to the extent that they affect a particular region. I ask the Government to think about that. I will not be pressing my amendment.

Lord Greaves: I am grateful to the Minister for that long and detailed explanation in reply to my point. I am grateful to the other Members who took part in the debate. Although the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has already gone, I will still say that he hit a crucial issue in this Bill. There is real concern that enhancement of the countryside is being downplayed. That concern goes right back to the genesis of the Bill, which now seems a long time ago.
	As everyone knows, the Bill was at least in part a result of pressure being put on the Government by development interests, if I can call them that, to say that development in this country is not easy enough. It is being restricted. As the Minister said, the system is wide open to people who wish to frustrate development. Clearly, there must be a balance. One of the reasons why this Bill started off through its various consultation processes was a belief that development ought to be made easier, in the interests of national economic growth. That concern is a thread that will run through the discussions on the Bill.
	The noble Viscount suggested that these proposals were too restrictive. There are two views and purposes of legislation. One is to allow people in authority, in particular the Government, to do what is thought to be necessary and to give rules and instructions and powers over people in the country to allow things to happen. The other view of legislation is that it is there to restrict the activities of people in power, including Ministers, to those areas that are thought to be necessary. Beyond those that are thought to be necessary, or perhaps highly desirable, they should not be allowed to do what they want, how they want in an arbitrary way. That is why, having listened to the debate, I still think that it would be a good idea to define this phrase in the Bill.
	Can the Minister tell us of anywhere else in planning legislation where a phrase as important as "regional spatial strategy" is included but not defined? I do not want an answer now; I am happy to have one afterwards. It is an unusual process to say that they will put the words in legislation and then the Government, Ministers or civil servants will write it all down on pieces of paper and tell people what the legislation means. It might trip up the courts to do that. It is unusual. Where else in planning legislation does that happen?
	As far as the difference is concerned, I understand now what will happen on structure plans. They will continue to exist as separate entities until they are superseded by the new sub-regional strategies. The Minister is nodding, so I understand how that will happen. How will the sub-regional strategies differ from existing structure plans, apart from boundaries? I understand that they may not follow the existing local authority boundaries, although not following them is a recipe for more confusion and more chaos. Again, I am happy for the Minister to tell us afterwards, or perhaps write to us. How will they differ? In what ways will they differ from structure plans? If we picked up a document, and it did not have a heading, would we read it and think that it was a structure plan, because it is simply the successor to those present plans? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Turner of Camden: If Amendment No. 4 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 5 to 7 or Amendment No. 10, because of pre-emption.

Baroness Maddock: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Page 1, line 7, leave out subsections (2) and (3).

Baroness Maddock: People will probably realise that, given what happened with the first amendment, this amendment is philosophically in the same vein, and I think that we will have to consider a bit further how to deal with the issue. I am not really going to pursue it tonight. Nevertheless—Part 3 is related to Part 2, so they are connected—I would be interested in the Minister's response to the issue raised here.

Lord Hanningfield: I am not certain whether I can speak to Amendment No. 5, because the Deputy Chairman said that it could not be called if we agreed to Amendment No. 4. As they are grouped together—I will speak to it. This is an important amendment, so I want to go over it.
	As the Bill stands, a regional spatial strategy is conceived as nothing more than a planning document that states the Secretary of State's policy agenda for a particular region. We all recognise the importance of the Government's role in giving strategic leadership to the planning system. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said during the debate on Amendment No. 1, Parts 1 and 2 of this Bill basically amount to the nationalisation of the planning system, and that is a very bad idea indeed.
	This amendment is aimed at freeing up the regional planning bodies, via the regional spatial strategies, from being simply the mouthpieces of Whitehall policy. This is not a political point. This amendment addresses the concern, expressed by many interested parties, that unless there are changes in the way the regional spatial strategies are established in legislation, there will be no space for local accountability as planning policy is implemented on the ground.
	We all want to help to speed up planning decisions. Centralised planning, while perhaps speeding up the system, will inevitably mean bad planning. Our current planning system needs reform, because it is too slow. We all agree on that. At least it has the distinct advantage of maintaining local accountability. As was mentioned at Second Reading, local responsibility for planning has meant that the quality of planning decisions has generally been good. At Second Reading, most noble Lords said that we probably had the best planning system in the world. Good quality planning must continue to be the key objective of any planning legislation.
	Thus, it is vital that we establish more mechanisms for the exercise of community participation at the regional level—hence my earlier amendment and the long discussion that we had on that—and bolster the capacity of regional planning bodies to respond to local conditions. At the moment, this legislation simply fails to recognise the enormous differences and variations between and within regions—I know that well, in regard to the eastern region—in terms of local land use and the development of future needs.
	As it stands, Clause 1(2) would lead to the accelerated fossilisation of regional spatial strategies, because they would have to constantly keep up with the rate at which new demands emanate from Whitehall in order to satisfy the requirements set out by the Secretary of State's policies. If the Government are serious about devolving power to the regions—we have had lots of debates about this—and if they are serious about devolution, then how do they square that with a policy that makes regional planning bodies—even after the establishment of elected regional assemblies—simply the agents of Whitehall and Westminster?
	Not only is democratic accountability being sucked out of the system by transferring powers upwards away from counties, but it also leaks out at the regional level. Regional planning bodies might find themselves accountable for policies that they do not support and over which they can exercise no control. In the brave new world of devolution and elected regional assemblies, one cannot simply transfer the old accountabilities on to the new regional structure.
	The regional spatial strategy should not be a vehicle for simply setting out government policy. It should be a strategic vision that meets the planning needs of local communities. Their elected representatives should agree it. Of course, regional spatial strategies will still have to have regard to the Government's priorities, and this involvement maintains that important dimension.
	This amendment would ensure that regional spatial strategies are permitted the necessary flexibility to respond to conditions in their areas. It would go a small way towards restoring a better balance between local accountability and central control. Ultimately, by reasserting the principle of subsidiarity and reversing the tide of centralism found throughout the Bill, the amendment would ensure better planning decisions than would be the case otherwise.

Lord Greaves: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 10. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I agree with the sentiments expressed in favour of the two previous amendments in the group.
	Amendment No. 10, like others in Clause 1, is now rather redundant, in a technical way, following the acceptance of Amendment No. 1. I had tabled it as another means of making a distinction between the situation in regions which had an elected assembly and those which did not. The distinction I was making was that where there is a legitimately elected body in the region, that body, rather than central government, should have control over the policy behind the regional spatial strategy. It would be a value-added feature of an elected assembly as opposed to a region which did not have an elected assembly. It is simply another means of making elected regional assemblies mean something in the regions that decide to have them; indeed, it could give them some meaning when people are being asked to vote for them.
	While we talked about regional assemblies in debating Amendment No. 1, the Minister several times put himself forward not only as an expert on his own Bill—which he is, and has every right to be—but also as an expert on Liberal Democrat policy on the subject. He kept telling us that we were in favour of imposing regional assemblies throughout the country whether or not people wanted them. Since then, I have been able to get a copy of the motion that was passed at the Liberal Democrat conference the last time the matter was debated and party policy was made. The Liberal Democrat party still makes party policy in an open and democratic way at our conferences. Quaint and old-fashioned though that may now seem in the political system, we believe it is something we should do.
	The motion was called "Creating Regional Government" and was passed at the federal conference of the Liberal Democrats in March 2002. I would love to read out the whole motion but it is about three pages long, so I will not. However, I am prepared to write to noble Lords and put copies in the Library if there is a demand. The relevant section says:
	"Conference therefore calls on the Government to . . . enable regional referenda to be held as soon as possible, and pass a Regional Powers Act"
	to say what powers they could take up. It is quite clear from the policy document from which that is taken that the regional referendums would be triggered not by central government saying, "We think they'll do up north, but nowhere else, so they can have them whether they like it or not". Instead, referendums would be triggered by people in the region—a proportion of local authorities or by 5 per cent of the electorate—asking for a referendum. If there was a yes vote, they would get a regional assembly, with far greater powers, far more devolution and far more takeover of the regional quangos than the Government are proposing. But that is all for another day. If the electorate voted no, they would not get a regional assembly. I do not know where the Minister gets his information about Liberal Democrat policies from, but whatever his source, it is not very accurate.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I support the amendment spoken to by my noble friend Lord Hanningfield. In the days, long ago, when I attended the Harvard Business School, there was, in the first year, a course devoted to personnel activity, most of which seemed to me to be quite astonishingly obvious. But one thing was said to us during that course which struck me freshly, and I have remembered it ever since—namely, one's responsibility, in any human organisation, for playing the part of a participant observer.
	Those of us who sit on the Back Benches in debates of this sort, who embark on what will quite clearly be a series of engagements of test match quality, but who do not represent any particular interest outside which requires them to express opinions, have the opportunity for reflection during such a process. Other test matches in which they have taken part in the past, analogous to the one in which we are currently engaged, come back to them. The one which has come back to me is the Licensing Bill, and of those noble Lords in the Chamber tonight, it will also have come back to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for he was a veteran of the same Committee stage.
	My recollection of the Licensing Bill, which also ran into a reaction from local authorities which we sought to express during those debates, is that the legislation was unduly centralising and prescriptive. My recollection is that in that Bill, local authorities—which I substitute for the regional planning bodies and the regional spatial strategy in this instance—were obliged to produce policies in relation to their licensing activities. However, those licensing policies had to have regard to the advice which they received from the DCMS. Those were the very words to which, if my recollection is correct, my noble friend Lord Hanningfield referred in this amendment.

Lord Avebury: The noble Lord may appreciate that the guidance has still not been published, after all these months. It has not yet appeared.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I do not want to press my analogy too hard, but I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing attention to that particular foible in the process.
	The words in the Licensing Bill were regarded as unduly prescriptive by the local authorities and therefore, by definition, the words to which my noble friend Lord Hanningfield is objecting in his amendment are more prescriptive still. I totally appreciate that circumstances alter cases and that the history of planning may be quite different from the history of licensing. The Minister may therefore have arguments relating to planning history which invalidate the analogy I have made. But because I recall the reaction of local authorities to the way in which they felt they were being imposed upon by the Government in having to pay respect to a national policy, I certainly support my noble friend and will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in reply.

Baroness Hanham: I pray in aid the consultation paper on draft planning policy PPS11 in this regard. It says that the regional spatial strategy should be specific to the region; while it should have regard to national policies, it should not simply repeat them. That is not what Clause 1 says. Subsection (5) says that the regional spatial strategy for a region,
	"is so much of a regional planning guidance relating to the region as the Secretary of State prescribes".
	What we have been talking about throughout our debate is what is involved in the regional spatial strategy and its position. Either the guidance is wrong, in which case it should not say "should have regard to" but should state quite categorically that the regional planning guidance, as laid out by the Secretary of State, has to be part of the regional spatial strategy, or it is not what the Bill says. That is precisely what my noble friend has just described. I should have thought that the guidance should be correct. The policies will lay out the Secretary of State's regional planning guidance, and it should draw attention to that. Clearly, those will be subsumed into local plans—will be part and parcel of them—where practical and obvious. The Government have to get the matter right and they have to decide what we are discussing and what is to be the rationale.
	While I am on my feet perhaps I could ask the Government not to split infinitives. "To better develop" is a split infinitive and when I was at school that was an absolutely heinous crime.

Lord Bradshaw: I support the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. We have here the possibility that regional planning guidance will be written in Whitehall which will not be applicable to particular regions or a particular region. On the other hand, if those in Whitehall write the strategies for regions, what are the people in the regions to do, if they must take account of that? We need some clarification because people must have room to move. One cannot centralise everything and expect someone below to interpret matters.

Lord Avebury: As the Minister has explained, in the first instance, the regional spatial strategy consists of such parts of the regional planning guidance as the Secretary of State chooses to read across. Every part of the RPG that is relevant, goes into the RSS and there is no discretion there, according to the description that the Minister gave earlier today. If the Bill had said that, there would have been less anxiety about the centralising tendencies of the Bill. If all that is to happen on day one is that the RPG becomes the RSS and has statutory force, whereas the RPG does not, people will see that the opportunity existed at a later stage, when the RPG comes to do the first revision, for changes to be made on a much more democratic basis, as the Minister has outlined.
	I believe that it would help the Committee enormously—and I would like to know the answer—if the Minister could say which parts of the RPG the Government intend not to read across. The Minister has already said that parts will not go into the strategy. That is why he was reluctant to accept the notion that one could alter the wording in Clause 1 so that it said precisely what he has said from the Dispatch Box—that it would consist of the RPG less whatever words the Secretary of State chose to leave out. That could have been expressed as giving the Secretary of State a power to transfer the RPG in total, less any words that he would designate by an order.
	He also said that nothing can be inserted in the RSS which is not already in the RPG. That is equally important because it means that until the first revision, which is conducted under Clause 5 by the RPB, nothing can go into the RSS at the whim of the Secretary of State unless your Lordships choose to amend the Bill in such a sense. In this Committee we are perfectly free to instruct the Secretary of State to put matters into the RSS or to say that the RSS can contain certain matters, but the Minister has told your Lordships that the Secretary of State is to bar himself from putting anything into the RSS which is not already in the RPG. If that had been made clear on the face of the Bill in Clause 1 a lot of trouble would have been saved.

Lord Rooker: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his questions, which have enabled me to find what I hope is a satisfactory answer. I almost rose before the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, because the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, did not actually move the amendment. She specifically said that she was not going to pursue it. I thought that would be one debate that we would not have and all of a sudden we have had a debate. The words, "I beg to move" have not been uttered. I have been careful on this point. We are making laws under the Bill, and we have had a debate on a group of amendments. I have a very short speaking note and I hope I have an answer to the central issue.
	The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and I will never come to an agreement on Liberal Democrat policy, but the whole thrust of all the speeches from Liberal Democrats in this Committee is that there will be regional governments in every region. That is the underlying assumption of every speech to which I have listened and I have listened to too many. That is why I made the point.

Lord Greaves: The Minister is mistaking party policy and our faith that if there is a referendum in any region on a decent regional government we can persuade people to vote for it.

Lord Rooker: I shall stick to the issue. This group of amendments raises the issue of what is a regional spatial strategy. I realise that so far I have been inadequate in explaining it. The amendments raise the issue of whose policies such a strategy will contain and what those policies may address. As drafted, Clause 1(2) defines the regional spatial strategy as setting out the Secretary of State's policies, however expressed, in relation to the development and use of land in the region. Clause 1(3) clarifies that the regional spatial strategy may contain policies for sub-regions.
	Amendment No. 4 would remove both that definition and the clarification. Amendment No. 5 seeks to alter the nature and contents of the regional spatial strategy. Instead of setting out the Secretary of State's spatial policies, it would simply have regard to those policies. Amendment No. 10 would specify that the regional spatial strategy would set out the Secretary of State's policies only if there were no elected regional authority for the region.
	Noble Lords have made quite clear their view that they do not believe that there should be regional plans for which the Secretary of State is ultimately responsible. They want the regional plans only where there are elected regional assemblies. However, their approach would create and not solve problems. Our regions are not identical. Their circumstances and the challenges that they face are each different and unique. We need regional plans. Without the plans there would be a vacuum. It is only at regional level that we can sensibly address important strategic planning issues. Many of those issues are region-wide and those that are not—sub-regional issues—do not respect the boundaries of county areas. It is that latter point that demonstrates why Clause 1(3) is a vital provision in the Bill.
	It will not surprise noble Lords to learn that Amendment No. 5 is not acceptable. If an elected regional assembly were responsible for the revisions to the regional spatial strategy, the right relationship to the Secretary of State's policies would be that of having regard to them. But this amendment foresees two sets of regional spatial policies: those in the regional spatial strategy and those of the Secretary of State. I cannot imagine that the noble Baroness would want the Secretary of State to have policies for a region that had its own elected governance—that is a different issue—if that is the result of the referendum.
	The regional spatial strategy must set out the Secretary of State's policies in relation to the development and use of land in the region. The regional spatial strategy can include different policies for different areas within a region. If there is any conflict between the policies and any other statement or information in the regional spatial strategy, the policies will prevail. All current regional planning guidance, with a few exceptions, will be converted to the regional spatial strategy in regulations. Those exceptions will be RPG3, which covers London; 3A, strategic views in London; 3B and 9B, the River Thames; and 9A, the Thames Gateway. Those documents will be replaced in large part by the Mayor's London plan and were not subject to public examination when they were prepared.
	I wish I had been able to say that earlier. The notes were there for another debate and they are quite specific because reading the Bill as drafted, and with what I had said earlier, that cannot happen, but it might have appeared as though the Secretary of State, at a whim, on a hunch, or on a prejudice, could influence the regional spatial strategy in a way that would be wholly unacceptable to the Committee, to the other House and to anyone else who is a democrat. That cannot happen anyway under the rules for the regional planning guidance, and the way in which they are put together. There will be nothing in the regional spatial strategy that is not in the RPGs, but it may not include all that is in the RPG. I did not give examples of what is not in it because one could make a big policy change by omission—which is what the suspicion would be.
	By making clear the specific exceptions, I hope that I have knocked on the head any suspicion, which would legitimately have been there—although it would be a very unfair aspersion to cast on the character of my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister. Nevertheless, in being specific about that, I hope that I have satisfied the points that were made. We shall obviously return to the issue, particularly in view of the Government's defeat earlier.

Viscount Ullswater: I wish to say something before my noble friend on the Front Bench decides what he is going to do with his amendment. The Minister is making a fundamental error. He has not accepted that current planning guidance—RPGs—are there to guide the structure plans, which are open to examination and inspectors' reports. They are not structure plans; they are guidance. The Bill turns guidance, which for the moment is guidance for the making of structure plans, into spatial strategy plans. Guidance now becomes statutory. What is unsettling is that something that is now a form of guidance is to become a statutory framework.

Lord Rooker: This is where we go into the areas where, in some ways, we need the lawyers at work. RPGs may be guidance, it is true, but my experience in the past couple of years or so with some of them is that they are treated as being almost statutory because we wish to change a figure or suggest a change here and there. I am not saying that they are more than guidance, but I say that because of the way in which they are produced, following public examination, because of the way in which I in my day job conduct discussions on the growth areas, particularly in the south-east, and because of the care, attention and detail that people bring to what is in them. I may be wrong—I shall return to the issue if need be—but I do not get the impression that they are informal, casual guidance documents. They are treated much more seriously than that, even though they do not have the statutory back-up that they will get when converted to regional spatial strategies. I have probably dropped myself in it by saying that, but that is the impression that I get doing my day job.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: Well, indeed, the Minister's impression from his day job or night job is correct. However, I wonder whether he would accept that the reason why the guidance is taken so seriously is that it is currently put together by members of local authorities. The only structure available to produce the guidance comprises members of authorities who have been responsible for producing unitary development plans and county structure plans in their own authorities. One thing that makes us nervous about any proposal to lessen the involvement of county councillors—for example, in planning in their area—is that in the intervening period before the creation of some sort of elected regional body there will be a hiatus during which no one feels any real ownership. At that point, the Minister is in danger of losing the coherence that he has rightly identified.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: If my noble friend Lord Hanningfield will indulge me, I have a question similar to that asked by my noble friend Lord Ullswater. I am a bear of very little brain and, although I heard what the Minister said about regional planning guidance that was omitted from the generality of the list, I want to test my understanding. Is it simply a matter of chronology that the regional spatial strategy has already been dealt with by the mayor and is shortly to be published, so that the documents that have been eliminated become academic once the mayor has taken his action?

Lord Rooker: I do not know. I do not have the detail of the way in which the London plans are put together, as it is some time since I dealt with it. I do not know whether it is a matter of chronology.
	The noble Lord's intervention has given me the opportunity to receive a note, which points out that the same people prepare the draft revisions of the regional planning guidance as the regional spatial strategy; in other words, the same people prepare the revisions. I hope that answers the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott.
	The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, is "Yes".

Lord Hanningfield: I return to my original amendment, which would have removed the word "must" and put in the words "have regard to". We shall have a lot of discussions about the whole issue, during the passage of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and the Government do not seem to realise this, but we are here to help. We would all like planning processes to be speeded up, and we would all like local people to be involved. We shall have a discussion about the definition of "sustainable" at some point—but we would all like to see the involvement of local people and sometimes difficult decisions taken that benefit communities.
	We believe very much in a bottom-up approach, while the Government seem to believe that it would work to have a top-down approach. We do not believe that will work. The Minister was kind enough to make some kind remarks about me, and I had some meetings with him yesterday with my other hat on. That sort of discussion is what achieves results—not the Secretary of State saying, "You must do this" or "You must do that". That builds up enormous resentment locally, and will not achieve what the Government want.
	I hope that in the course of our discussions in the Chamber we might improve the Bill, and that we will take away the "nationalisation" of the planning system, as it has been described, which is very much resented by local authorities, and even more resented by people in the localities. They want to be involved in discussions that go upwards and end up in development. It simply will not work otherwise; as I said earlier, we shall be back here in three or four years' time looking at another Bill. If the Secretary of State believes that he can impose regional policies, it will not work.
	As my noble friend Lady Hanham said, there is conflict between what is said in the Bill and in the guidance, which we have just considered. There is a whole raft of things that need to be questioned and discussed, but we may end up speeding up the processes if the Government will only listen to us a bit more about local accountability, and the need for local people to be involved and for the process to go up rather than down the whole time.
	We shall have many discussions along those lines in the next few days. I am sure that we shall return to the matter. Although I shall not press my amendment today, we shall have to pursue the matter further as the Bill progresses.

Baroness Maddock: I apologise for being rather careless about the way in which I introduced Amendment No. 4. I wanted the debate because of the amendments connected to it, and the debate has been very useful. However, for reasons that Members of the Committee can see—particularly with the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Greaves—what happened earlier this afternoon has caused complications. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]

Lord Bridges: moved Amendment No. 6:
	Page 1, line 7, leave out "(however expressed)"

Lord Bridges: I wish to make it clear that I do not dispute the need for Secretary of State to have the right to inform the regional planning authority of the direction that he wishes it to take—if necessary in some detail. The Secretary of State already has such a right, and our planning system has worked well, with overall central control in the hands of the Secretary of State implemented on the ground by elected councillors. That is the system that I wish to see continued, but we must avoid unnecessary hazard—and I believe that the words "however expressed", referring to the policies of Secretary of State, is such a hazard.
	I give an example. Let us suppose that the Secretary of State has issued precise guidance on a controversial matter. He is invited to appear on the BBC's "Today" programme at eight o'clock and faces some critical, perhaps hostile, questions. He replies forcefully and well and may express himself with some freedom, perhaps exceeding the more cautious words in his more formal guidance. As I understand the phrase "however expressed", his words on the radio interview then have legislative effect. That is legislation by mouth.
	Perhaps I may remind the Minister of a celebrated case in which one of his predecessors was involved. The year is 1947. The Minister is Mr Silkin. The issue is the designation of Stevenage as a new town. The decision to so designate the first new town had been taken before the necessary legislation had been enacted and had aroused fierce criticism locally. The Minister went to Stevenage to explain the decision and he had a rough time of it. At one point he said, "It is no good your jeering. It is going to be done". The Minister was taken to court and Mr Justice Henn Collins held that the order was not ultra vires but that the Minister had been biased in his consideration of the order and he quashed the order. Some weeks later, when the Bill had completed its passage through Parliament, the decision was reversed in the Court of Appeal by a committee presided over by Lord Oaksey.
	I wish to avoid any such embarrassments in future. I hope that the Minister will understand my motive in seeking to delete the two unnecessary words. My intention is to be helpful to him by improving the text of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Hanningfield: We on these Benches support the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, says, at a public meeting there could be some extraordinary expressions from the Deputy Prime Minister or the Secretary of State and we could have some very funny policies. One could have planning policy by e-mail, for example. They would be expressions of the Secretary of State.
	Through this provision, the Government seek to give themselves maximum latitude in setting planning policies. The noble Lord must consider whether these words are appropriate. I hope that the Minister will say that these words are unnecessary. They seem extraordinary and somewhat absurd to most of us.

Lord Cobbold: I support the amendment. If these unnecessary words are excluded, they should be deleted also from Clause 11(3) on page 6 of the Bill.

Lord Rooker: They also appear in former Tory legislation which I presume Conservative Peers voted for in this House. Perhaps the noble Lord was not present then.
	I give an example. While I fully respect the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, it is not legislation by mouth. I understand the reaction—shock and abomination—on first seeing such words in legislation. It is not quite as bad as it seems. The amendment deletes the words. However, I hope to demonstrate that that would undermine our intention for a more integrated spatial dimension to policies. That is true: it is not just because it is stated here. The words are important.
	We have used the word "spatial" a great deal. It is not a new idea. The concept of a "spatial strategy" is already on the statute book in the form of the Greater London Authority Act provision for the Mayor's spatial development strategy. Therefore, it is time to remind ourselves of what we mean by spatial planning and why it matters.
	Spatial planning goes beyond traditional land use planning to bring together and integrate policies for the development and use of land with other policies and programmes which influence the nature of places and how they function. That includes policies which impact on land use, for example by influencing the demands on or need for development but which are not capable of being delivered solely or mainly through the granting or refusal of planning permission and which may be implemented by other means.
	The current wording of Clause 1(2) makes it clear that the regional spatial strategies can contain such policies—that is, not those exclusively for land use. To delete the phrase "however expressed" potentially limits the scope of the regional spatial strategy to be what its title says it should be: that is, a spatial strategy for the region.
	There is a good precedent. The words "however expressed" can be found in a number of Acts of Parliament, including relevantly—if I were to quote an Act which was not relevant to the Bill it would probably undermine the point—in paragraph 17(3) of Part II of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This provision is not unique. It is not designed to allow the Secretary of State to operate "policy by mouth" in a radio interview; far from it.
	The inclusion of the phrase absolutely does not mean that the Secretary of State can create regional planning policy outside the regional spatial strategy. He can issue national policy statements. They would affect the region. What it does mean is that those policies within the regional spatial strategy can properly be spatial, as I outlined earlier, and not within narrow confines. So the words have an important legal meaning with regard to the Bill and a genuine spatial strategy. There is a precedent in the Town and Country Planning Act which I suspect was not debated in this House when it went through Parliament in 1990.

Baroness Hamwee: I wish my noble friend Lord Greaves was present. This discussion is closely linked to the question he raised about what is a regional spatial strategy. The Minister's remarks will repay careful reading.
	Although this point may not be right having heard his last sentence or two, what may be meant is "wherever expressed". It is about spatial strategy but it might not have the heading of regional spatial strategy. That is why I link it with the point raised by my noble friend Lord Greaves. I am so ashamed of myself. Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 has not formed part of my bedtime reading. The fact that terminology is already in legislation does not mean that it is unchangeable. It means that one should hesitate to change it. But if it is causing the confusion which still reigns in my mind, despite the answer, it bears closer examination.

Lord Avebury: I do not wish to prolong the proceedings. However, what the Minister has just said will confuse readers of the proceedings today when they look back to what has been said on previous amendments.
	The noble Lord made clear that the initial RSS would contain nothing which was not in the regional planning guidance. Certain exceptions which are at present in the regional planning guidance—the Minister helpfully outlined what those are—may not appear in the RSS. How can one express something in addition to what is in the RPG? The words "however expressed" mean that at some point between the passage of the Bill and the first revision, dealt with under Clause 5, an idea might occur to the Secretary of State. He expresses it in whichever form he chooses. It may be an order or a speech in Parliament. It appears to give him a discretion and latitude which the Minister's previous remarks did not claim. He sought to tell the Committee—I found it reassuring—that there was no intention by the Secretary of State to lay down in an RSS anything which was not already contained in the RPG; and even that was not the totality of it because there were certain exceptions which the noble Lord outlined.
	The words "however expressed" seem to indicate that the Secretary of State is giving himself the right, at some point in the future, to put things in which are not in the RPG, because otherwise there would be no purpose in having the words. The reference back to the 1990 Act, with great respect to the Minister, is not relevant in this context.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Contrary to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I am profoundly reassured, for personal reasons, by what the Minister said in response to the debate. I am genuinely fond and admiring of the Deputy Prime Minister, but even his closest friends would not deny that he has certain stylistic idiosyncrasies of personal expression. The fact that the Minister has been able to quote legislation, and particularly copper-bottomed legislation brought in by a Conservative government, indicates that there was no such consideration in those words in parentheses. I am greatly reassured that that is so.

Lord Bridges: I am grateful for the Minister's reply to my question. As I listened to the comments on my amendment, it seemed to me that the nature of the communication between the Secretary of State and the region will be of fundamental importance. Will it simply be an anthology of the existing guidance that he wishes to see reproduced—we were given that impression earlier this afternoon—or will he issue some more binding instruction? It is not altogether clear where we shall end up. I suspect that there will be further debates on this subject as the Bill proceeds. Therefore, I do not intend to pursue the matter further this evening.
	However, there is another way of doing this. There is something to be said for a degree of formality in the communication between the Secretary of State and the regional planning authority. Indeed, one might go so far as to suggest that this should take the form of an order under a statutory instrument and that the Select Committee of the House that studies these matters might be able to give him some helpful advice on how that should be formulated. That degree of formality would not be very much in accord with the discussions that we have heard this afternoon, but the nature of this communication is, in itself, fundamental. We shall have to return to the matter at a later stage. For the present, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]

Lord Avebury: moved Amendment No. 8:
	Page 1, line 8, at end insert—
	"( ) The RSS shall specify the area of land to be provided for caravan sites and group housing schemes for travellers residing in or resorting to the region."

Lord Avebury: In moving Amendment No. 8 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 95 and 103. Like the noble Lords, Lord Hanningfield and Lord Bridges, I have every intention of helping the Government. In these amendments I want to assist them in solving a planning problem that has plagued the country for more than 40 years. It is the problem of where Travellers and Gypsies can find to live in a countryside that is increasingly used for other purposes, where many of the stopping places which the travellers used to frequent have now become overrun by buildings, roads or other structures.
	The number of Traveller caravans on unauthorised sites increased by about 600 between January 2001 and January 2003, according to the count which was made by the local authorities and published by the ODPM. This is the direct result of the repeal by the Conservative government in 1994 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968, which placed an obligation on local authorities to provide accommodation for Gypsies residing in, or resorting to, their area. Up to that point, and for the next few years after repeal, the local authorities had been getting on top of the problem. If they had continued to develop new sites after 1997 at the same rate as in the years before that date, then, as a matter of simple arithmetic, we would have 1,000 more pitches now than there actually are. It was impossible for the private sector to make up for this loss. We told the government then that a time would come when the losses would begin to show up in increased numbers of unauthorised sites. The then Labour opposition, led by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, agreed with us.
	One way of remedying that deficiency and preventing an indefinite increase in the number of homeless Travellers year on year in the future would be simply to restore the duty on local authorities to provide sites. That was, in effect, one of the main recommendations of the Birmingham University report by Pat Niner to the ODPM on which Ministers have said that they will comment in April. My impression is that they had already ruled this out before they brought in Mr Bill Forrester from Kent County Council to look at these issues. It would be very helpful if the Minister would tell us exactly what his terms of reference were.
	But if local authorities are not to provide sites then they must at any rate grant planning permission for sites in the places where the Travellers are at present having to camp on the roadside, on somebody else's land, or on their own land without planning permission. That is a phenomenon that has caused a great deal of complaint. This morning, I was talking to officials of the Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council who are currently having difficulty with an unauthorised site that is occupied by about 21 Gypsy families, on which the local authority has obtained a court order for possession. The point there is that there is nowhere for these people to go. If they are driven off that site, the local authority is not making alternative provision for them but has told them that they have to seek land on which planning permission might be granted. We all know how difficult that is.
	I am sure that it is not necessary to persuade the Government that circular 194 has been a failure. That was the Tory government's feeble attempt to persuade local authorities to have regard to the needs of Travellers in their development plans. Of course, hardly any of them did so. As a general rule, Travellers have been able to make only insufficient provision for themselves by purchasing land, applying for permission and then going to appeal when they meet the inevitable refusal. In spite of the clear evidence of the January counts, which show that this haphazard process is not delivering, the Government have been deaf to the suggestion, made to several Ministers since Labour took office in 1997, that we should monitor the rate of success of Traveller applications for planning permission and of appeals. Ministers have told me that the planning inspectorate has the figures—the Minister will recognise that phrase—but Donald Kenrick has shown that they are seriously inaccurate.
	In the debate that we had last June on Gypsies and social deprivation, the Minister who replied, the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, offered some encouragement. He said,
	"the Government are reviewing planning procedures, and gypsy and traveller provision will be looked at as part of that review".—[Official Report, 5/6/03; col. 1581.]
	So this is the moment when the Government can deliver on that undertaking and also take into consideration what the Minister said on an earlier amendment; that is, that this is a once in a double decade opportunity. He is absolutely correct, because the last occasion when we had the opportunity of solving the problem of Gypsies at a single stroke, as it were, was after the report of Sir John Cripps in 1977. So 26 years have elapsed since then and if we do not take this chance that we have under the planning legislation, we may wait another 25 or so years for a solution.
	The first of these amendments requires the Secretary of State to set targets for the regional spatial strategy in each of the regions for the amount of land which is to be allocated to Traveller caravan sites and group housing schemes in the same way as the Minister has described on an earlier amendment that there will be a numerical target set for the regions for the amount of housing that they will contain. I should perhaps explain that the phrase "group housing" refers to schemes that have been developed in the Republic of Ireland and which have since been extended to Northern Ireland. They have proved very popular with Travellers because they allow extended families to remain together, as their culture demands, while at the same time putting down some roots. Although many travellers still aspire to a nomadic way of life, or at least to be able to go to festivals up and down the country and family occasions, some are happy to settle down as long as it does not mean their separation from the extended family. We have not tried group housing in Britain, but it is an idea that I have been pressing on Ministers for some years. It was among the recommendations made by Pat Niner.
	The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Evans, also said in the June debate:
	"The ultimate answer to homelessness is to have an adequate number of authorised sites for gypsies and travellers in which to camp".—[Official Report, 5/6/03; col. 1582.]
	I suggest that in order to do that we need to look at the numbers who are at present homeless, and that means the number living on unauthorised sites who are by definition homeless according to the definition in the Housing Act 1996. It should be a simple matter of arithmetic to calculate how much land would be required to accommodate all the gypsies in a particular region just by taking the number on unauthorised sites and applying to them a density which we know is appropriate from the provision that has already been made.
	The next question is how responsibility is to be divided among the local authorities in the region. That has always been the major difficulty because, even when the local authorities have a duty, every time that there was a proposal for a site there would be objections and councillors were reluctant to get into arguments with vociferous groups of their own constituents. It was always difficult to persuade residents within a particular locality where a traveller site was planned that a well designed and well managed site would be a much better alternative than an unauthorised site where there was no rubbish collection or proper sanitation, inhabited by people without a stake in the neighbourhood and that cause trouble.
	In the planning system now being created by the Bill, as I understand it and as I think the Minister made clear earlier, the provision of housing in each local authority will be decided initially by the Secretary of State, no doubt after consultation, as the Minister has explained, with all the local authorities in the region. Since travellers normally live in caravans, I suggest that it would be a breach of the ODPM's obligations under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act if, in carrying out the function of preparing instructions for counsel for the drafting of this legislation, the department had not paid due regard to the need to promote equality between travellers and the rest of the population in terms of housing accommodation. That means that whatever provision they make for housing should be accompanied by an equivalent traveller site.
	I should say at this point that although gypsies were defined in non-ethnic terms under the Caravan Sites Act 1968 there are now recognised groups of travellers who are defined in ethnic terms; those are the Romanies and the Irish travellers. It is considered by many that Scottish travellers are also a separate group, although that has yet to be clarified by the Scottish courts or the Scottish Parliament. It also follows that the descendants of marriages between members of these groups and the settled population are entitled to the same consideration under the RRA. Since there has been a great deal of intermarriage over the generations, it is best to assume that people claiming the status of travellers possess it. That would be in compliance with the OSCE's principle that to belong to a national minority is a matter of personal individual choice.
	Therefore, if there is to be a development plan document for housing, then either it must detail the provisions that are to be made for traveller accommodation so that travellers are not disadvantaged by the travelling system, or better still, as the second of these amendments suggests, there should be a separate DPD spelling out the provisions to be made for travellers in each planning authority. That, as I say, is the purpose of the second of these amendments.
	The development plan document is defined in Clause 36(3)as,
	"a document which . . . is a local development document, and . . . forms part of the development plan".
	The DPDs taken as a whole, plus the RSS—or in the case of London the Mayor's spatial development strategy—form the development plan as defined in Clause 37. I have to acknowledge that my scheme is incomplete because it does not require the SDS to contain a target for the amount of land to be allocated to traveller sites in London. That is because it may be appropriate for the Mayor to set that target rather than for Parliament to do it for him, though I have to say that I am uneasy about giving Mr Livingstone that discretion considering the lack of interest that he has displayed in traveller issues in the past.
	The ideal would be for local authorities in each region to consult among themselves and decide what provision each of them will make in its DPD for traveller accommodation. If they do that, and if at the end of the process the contribution that they make collectively adds up to the target set in the RSS, then the shortage of traveller accommodation will be on the way to a solution. If there is any shortfall then my third amendment gives the Secretary of State the power to issue directions to any local authority requiring it to provide land for extra sites. Of course the Secretary of State already has a power of direction, but I am spelling it out in this amendment.
	The power is modelled on a similar power that exists in the Caravan Sites Act, and that proved most effective when it was used sparingly in the last few years of the Act's existence. There, of course, the requirement was for the local authority to construct and to run the site. Here it is to allocate the land in a DPD and it would still be for private enterprise of an RSL or for the gypsies themselves to undertake the construction work and to operate the site.
	In view of the fact that the Minister has been very sympathetic, and that we know that Miss Yvette Cooper, the Minister responsible in the ODPM for gypsies, has herself been touring the sites and seeing for herself at first hand the effects of the lack of provision, I hope that the Government will seize this opportunity and either accept my amendments or come forward with alternatives themselves to solve this problem once and for all. I beg to move.

Baroness Whitaker: In supporting these amendments, I am aware that the Government are carrying out a review of accommodation for Roma, gypsies and travellers, set out by my honourable friend Yvette Cooper in her letter of 15 January to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I appreciate this long overdue concern which does the Government credit. But whatever the conclusions of the review on means, this Bill gives an opportunity to create the necessary framework for further steps which should not be missed, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said.
	I know personally of Roma families who cannot get authorised sites—I will not weary the Committee by detailing their insecurity. These people are our oldest indigenous minority and the prejudice and discrimination that they suffer is no less severe by being usually unacknowledged. It is seen in the higher mortality rates of their children, lack of educational attainment, even of attendance, poverty and ill health. I hope that my noble friend can help now.

Baroness Maddock: I strongly support the words of my noble friend Lord Avebury except possibly for his views on the Mayor of London—who may not always be the Mayor of London and who, as my noble friend sitting next to me has pointed out, may even be the outgoing Mayor.
	I was in local government when the first major changes regarding travellers were made. I think that we forecast what would happen. My noble friend Lord Avebury has very graphically explained it, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, has backed that up. I am fortunate that I live in the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed where the local authority has an absolutely excellent traveller site. Anyone who goes on the railway line can see it from the line—it is absolutely spotless. It is right in the middle of the town and we have no problems. I was also a councillor in Southampton where we also had a very successful site. Where the sites exist, it works. It is in the interests of the travellers. The children go to school and are enabled to live life as they wish to do. Given everything we have heard from the Government, I hope that they will take this opportunity to do something about it, even if it is not exactly what we are asking today.

Lord Rooker: I want to be as helpful as I can but I shall probably not be as helpful as noble Lords would wish at this stage of the Bill. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for bringing forward the amendments which provide us with the opportunity to put some of the issues on the record regarding the accommodation needs of gypsies and travellers and how they might be addressed in the new planning arrangements.
	There is no question that this is an important point; namely, how the needs of gypsies and travellers, both those wishing to settle on sites and those who still travel for a living, might be met under the new arrangements.
	As the noble Lord knows, we are currently undertaking a review of our gypsy and traveller policies. The review includes consideration of how site provision will be secured under the new planning arrangements and we are taking close account of the ideas proposed by the Institute for Public Policy Research in its document Moving Forward which I understand will be published shortly. I certainly do not wish to prejudge the outcome of our review, but it might be helpful if I sketch out one of the ways in which gypsy and traveller needs might be identified and incorporated into the new planning regime.
	The leading option we are considering is to assess the site and pitch needs of gypsies and travellers under a process similar to that used for housing need assessments—possibly as part of that very same process. Under such an arrangement gypsy and traveller site needs could be identified and incorporated into the regional housing strategy which, under our current proposals, is then reflected in the regional spatial strategy in terms of numbers of sites by local planning authority. The identification of where the sites should be in each authority's area would then be the responsibility of the local planning authorities in preparing their local development documents.
	Clearly, once site and pitch requirements are identified in the regional spatial strategy they may be subject to public examination and the Secretary of State must agree the finalised strategy. It will, of course, be a requirement that local development documents are in general conformity with the regional spatial strategy. I should stress that our ideas of exactly how we will ensure the needs of gypsies and travellers will be met are at an early stage. But we are satisfied that we shall be able to integrate their legitimate requirements into the new planning arrangements without amending the Bill in this respect. I say that in Committee but certainly we have ongoing work in this respect.
	The ODPM review of gypsy and traveller policy is reviewing all aspects of ODPM policy responsibility, including planning, site provision and managing unauthorised encampments. It is not the case that Ministers have ruled out an expansion in provision. I do not know where that rumour has come from. However, it would be quite wrong of me to comment on any particular planning case. I understand these situations. As I say, for a year I was the planning Minister at the ODPM and dealt with several cases. I have part of some correspondence between the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and Yvette Cooper, the policy Minister in the department. She indicated in a draft of the reply, which I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has yet received:
	"We will be conducting some seminars on this issue in the very near future in Cambridge, Liverpool, London and Derby starting next week to run to probably nearly the end of February going over the issues of land use policy, planning consent for private sites, improving access to health, education and other services, public site provision and management and general issues including unauthorised camping".
	We are in close contact with the organisations representing gypsies and travellers. Indeed, we shall let the noble Lord know the precise dates and locations of the seminars. If he wishes to take part in any of them, he will be more than welcome. I say that in a genuine spirit of helpfulness. I am not trying to avoid responding to the issues that have been raised. Some thorny issues will have to be tackled once we have conducted the policy review. I refer to the expenditure proposals and the 2004 spending round. Nevertheless, we treat the issue with the utmost seriousness. It is an important issue so far as the department is concerned.
	I cannot go much further regarding that point tonight; otherwise, I shall go down the road that I hate going down; namely, that of referring to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Treasury and finance. The central issue is to establish the policy and to ensure that we put in place a process within the new planning system whereby it is not possible to avoid providing the required number of sites. The need must be measured and assessed openly. The connection between the regional spatial strategy and local development documents does not allow a local authority to opt out and say, "We are not having such a measure. We have no need of it". As I say, we shall ensure that local development plans by and large conform to the regional spatial strategy. We can solve this problem for the foreseeable future, not just for a few years. This is a generational issue for our fellow citizens. We shall do our best to come up with something that is acceptable to all parties concerned, including, of course, as a priority, gypsies and travellers themselves.

Lord Avebury: I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful answer and for inviting me to take part in the forthcoming seminars. I shall certainly take up that offer when the dates are announced, just as I shall take up the invitation from Yvette Cooper who has kindly invited me to discuss the matter personally with her. I very much value that opportunity.
	As the noble Lord suggested, the Bill can take care of the accommodation needs of gypsies just as it takes care of the accommodation needs of the rest of the population. I agree with the noble Lord that one of the best ways of doing that is what he called the leading option; namely, to assess the needs of gypsies as part of ordinary housing needs and therefore to incorporate their requirements in the regional spatial strategy. As I understand it, the RSS will set an overall target for every region regarding the amount of accommodation that is necessary for people in the settled population. It will also add a separate element of accommodation for gypsies. That was one of the two alternatives that I mentioned.
	Then, as the noble Lord says, local planning authorities will have to identify in the local development documents what contribution they will make to the attainment of those targets. As the noble Lord said, there is no opt-out there. As I understand it, local authorities in a region will collectively have to provide a total number of sites that equates with the figure set out in the regional spatial strategy.
	The noble Lord did not mention the third leg of the policy. If the total number of gypsy sites within a region did not match the target set out in the RSS, a reserve power of direction exists in the legislation. I referred to that in a separate amendment. I suggested that the power should not be exercised in the first year after the coming into force of the Act so that local authorities have every chance to get together voluntarily to provide the relevant amount of accommodation. If they have not achieved that objective after 12 months, the powers of the Secretary of State will come into play.
	I am sure that we ought not to take the matter any further this evening in view of the helpful reply that the Minister has given. Therefore, I shall withdraw the amendment and hope that it will not even be necessary to return to the matter on Report subject to my discussions with the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving that Motion, I propose that the Committee recommence not before 8.40 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Primary Medical Services (Northern Ireland) Order 2004

Baroness Amos: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 17 December 2003 be approved.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the purpose of the draft Primary Medical Services (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 is to make the legislative changes to allow the implementation in Northern Ireland of the new contract for the provision of general medical services by GPs. It amends the provisions of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 and replicates measures introduced in England and Wales by the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 and in Scotland by the Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Bill.
	The new contract represents the most radical change to the way in which general practitioner services are delivered since the inception of the National Health Service. The contract was negotiated with the profession in response to UK-wide demands from GPs for new working arrangements that would enable them to control their workload and achieve a better work/life balance. The new contract has the overwhelming support of the profession and the changes it will introduce to GPs' working arrangements should ensure that qualifying doctors continue to be attracted to general practice for the future.
	As well as being good for the profession, the contract will deliver real benefits to patients, other health care professionals and to primary care as a whole. The emphasis it places on team working and the opportunities it offers to provide a wider range of services at the primary care level will facilitate the future development of primary care for Northern Ireland.
	I shall comment briefly on the main provisions of the draft order. Article 3 inserts provision into the 1972 order to place a new statutory duty on health and social services boards to provide or secure the provision of primary medical services for persons in their area. The responsibility to provide such services currently rests with the general practitioners.
	Article 4 inserts into the 1972 order broad regulation—making powers which will be used to set out the detail of the terms and content of new contracts, including who may provide services and the rights and obligations under such contracts.
	Article 5 introduces powers to make transitional arrangements in respect of persons who are providing services under the existing general medical services contract and for the resolution of disputes in relation to new contract. The measures are intended to ensure continuity of service in the period spanning the date of implementation.
	Article 6 amends existing legislation to reflect the fact that the current changes have implications for those who are providing services under a personal medical services arrangement and Article 7 abolishes the statutory requirement to pilot such arrangements.
	Article 8 provides regulation-making powers to prescribe the way persons providing general medical services under the new contract are to be listed. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17 December 2003 be approved.—(Baroness Amos.)

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council for her clear explanation of the order. In paper terms it is quite large. However, as the introduction tells us, it takes Section 4 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act and transfers it into law in Northern Ireland. My party had no dissent with Section 4 of the Act and hence I have no dissent in principle with the order.
	I have some questions. I am a little concerned about costs. The Explanatory Memorandum tells us in paragraphs 19 and 20 that extra cost will be incurred. I am always somewhat suspicious when the Government admit that something they are doing will increase costs. My life experience tells me that significant change in most matters—certainly in business life—almost invariably incurs extra cost. I hope that those costs will prove to be a sound and profitable investment and the investment will be delivered in improved service. In principle, I support the order.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council for introducing the order. Its aim is to replicate in Northern Ireland some of the PCT elements that pertain in England and Wales. The main provision is new GP contracts. That is a matter which the Liberal Democrats have supported.
	However, there are concerns about the provision of out-of-hours services. Previously general practitioners were contracted to provide out-of-hours services that are now the duty of primary care trusts in England and Wales. PCTs there are having problems in providing services at night. That is a particular problem in rural areas, where there may be only one GP. Given that we are aware of the difficulty, can the Minister say what steps the Government are taking to ensure that the problem does not arise in Northern Ireland, where there are many rural practices?
	Furthermore, in England and Wales there is provision for lay members on PCTs. That is also true of the health and social services boards in Northern Ireland. But they cover large areas. Have the Government any plans to introduce a more local lay element, other than at the sub-regional level, of the health and social services boards?

Lord Rogan: My Lords, my colleagues and I welcome the new medical practitioner contract, but while I feel that the legislation comes not a moment too soon, the Government must be scrupulous in ensuring that the interests of both the patients and the general practitioners are protected.
	I understand the difficulty of out-of-hours working, but will the proposals under the new legislation provide a better service when GPs are under contract and do not provide an out-of-hours service but instead register with some agency or body that does? Will the position be similar to that of the nursing profession? Ultimately, agency nurses cost the health service more than it can by directly employing them. Consequently, hospitals should be encouraged to build up their own nursing banks, rather than go through agencies, because otherwise they have to employ the agency staff above their permanent staff. The issue must be carefully considered regarding GPs.
	Apparently, recruitment to GP training schemes in Northern Ireland is declining and if GP services are improved in Great Britain, there would be—I realise that I will sound selfish, but it is realistic—a movement of many Northern Ireland doctors to the mainland. I can understand why our recruitment is declining. In the past many of our young graduates from Queen's University doing their junior house and senior training found it exceedingly difficult to find GP training posts in Northern Ireland.
	We must arrest that decline in recruitment to GP schemes in Northern Ireland. We are still producing medical graduates. If we do not produce more of our own GPs who will remain in Northern Ireland, particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, implied, in rural areas, we will have further difficulties in providing the service that the taxpayer has come both to expect and deserve.
	The new legislation prescribes a practice-based contract, instead of a contract for individual GPs. Who will be responsible for seeing how that contract is implemented? Will a senior GP in a practice say what his staff should be paid or will the staff be employed directly by an outside service? Regarding finance, I welcome the guaranteed increase of 34 per cent over the next three years, but the Government must provide funding after that. Will sufficient funds be made available to maintain the changes after they have been put into place?
	It is unclear why we are emphasising heart diseases, strokes, asthma—from which I suffer—diabetes, epilepsy, mental health problems and other chronic diseases as indicators to encourage our GPs to organise their practices better and to be more responsive to patients' needs. When we start especially prescribing like that, there is a temptation to focus on just those conditions. It is an issue that has not been properly thought through. Therefore, I ask that other important issues, particularly children's health, are not overlooked.
	Access targets have been mentioned for childhood immunisation for flu vaccines; routine monitoring of anti-coagulant therapy and rheumatology drugs; patients with depression; dealing with drug, alcohol or homelessness problems; and providing services for patients with a history of violence. These all are enhanced services, but who will be the doorkeeper? Will it be the GP who refers patients? How long will it take to get through to the enhanced services?
	There is an urgent need to reorganise the system and to do it as accurately as possible. I must remind the House that this is the first major shift in policy since 1948 and it might be well into the 21st century before we get a similar opportunity. We must get it right.
	The Government must ensure that this legislation, when implemented, is targeted at making effective changes that penetrate the top-heavy system as it now exists and provides a better deal for both patients and general practitioners.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and I shall try to address all the points that have been raised.
	The noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Rogan, asked about costs. Funding for these arrangements will be guaranteed for five years. With respect to the specific question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, I assure him that it will improve the range and quality that is available to patients and the importance of patients' views will be strengthened through the patient satisfaction element of the quality and outcomes framework. The noble Lord's concern about improvement in the monitoring service is dealt with.
	The noble Lords, Lord Smith of Clifton and Lord Rogan, expressed concern about out-of-hours services. Where GPs exercise their right to opt out, the responsibility for providing services will rest with the health and social services boards which, at the request of the department, are currently working with colleagues and other bodies on the details of the most appropriate alternative arrangements to put in place. I can assure noble Lords that contracts will be implemented in such a way as to ensure no loss of access to out-of-hours services.
	The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, asked about lay members on the PCTs. The department introduced new structures in 2002 in the form of local health and social care groups whose membership comprises primary care professionals and community representation. I hope that that addresses the noble Lord's concern.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, asked a number of questions with respect to recruitment, training and retention of GPs. The new contract is specifically designed to make general practice more attractive to aspiring doctors. On the movement of GPs, the contract is UK-wide and will provide the same benefits to GPs in Northern Ireland. This will ensure that difficulties with respect to recruitment and retention, which are current in Great Britain, will be prevented in Northern Ireland.
	On payments to practice staff, which was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, they will be provided within practices. On agency nurses, agencies are private companies which negotiate their rates with the boards. GPs will contract with the boards on the basis of terms and conditions set out in the contract and laid down by regulation.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, also asked about priorities with respect to services. A number of additional services will be covered. The noble Lord was particularly concerned about children. This will include child health surveillance. The enhanced services will be commissioned by health and social services boards as a need is recognised.
	I hope that that addresses all the points which have been raised.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, it was good to have her assurances about the health and social services boards making provision for night-time cover. Bearing in mind the rurality of Northern Ireland, can she give a hint of the kind of arrangements that the health and social services boards are looking at?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I do not have the detail of that because the health and social services boards are currently looking at the kind of arrangements which could be put in place locally to provide a comprehensive service outside normal practice hours. If the noble Lord will permit me, I will happily write to him once we have more information about the matter. It is clear that any arrangements put in place must include a proper set of standards which must be met by the providers of such service. I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Betting and Gaming (Northern Ireland) Order 2004

Baroness Amos: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12 January be approved.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the purpose of the draft Betting and Gaming (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 is to relax some of the existing statutory controls on betting and gaming in Northern Ireland. In doing so, the order will, for the most part, bring the Northern Ireland law in these areas more closely into line with the corresponding law currently applying in Great Britain.
	The draft order will amend the 1985 order to ease restrictions on betting and gaming in the following areas: the regulation of football pools competitions; betting on race tracks, including a change to allow on-course Sunday betting and the provision of employment protection rights for track betting workers; the licensing and conduct of bookmaking offices; the registration of clubs under the 1985 order for gaming machine purposes; gaming machines, including the premises in which they may be used and the conditions applying; and the advertising of bingo. The order will also transfer responsibility for the grant of bookmaking office licensing from courts of summary jurisdiction to county courts.
	During the recent consultations on the proposals for a draft order, interest focused mainly on the issue of a change in the law to allow on-course Sunday betting. The response to the consultation demonstrated clearly that there is strong support among race-goers and other racing interests in Northern Ireland for on-course Sunday betting. The consultation exercise, however, also recorded the concerns of those for whom Sunday is a special day. I have the utmost respect for their views, but of course this is a matter of personal choice. When the law is changed, people will be able to choose whether they wish to go to a racetrack and bet on a Sunday. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12 January be approved.—(Baroness Amos.)

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. For many generations, gambling has been an integral part of Irish life. On many occasions, it has led to considerable social hardship in many of the poorer areas of the 32 counties of Ireland, not merely the six counties. For many years when I served on the Sports Council for Northern Ireland, there was a considerable and strong Presbyterian movement against any form of active recreation or sport, which even included allowing the opening of public swimming pools and recreation centres anywhere in the Province. Only in recent years has that changed and mellowed, largely because of the excellent management of such centres.
	I took some time to make inquiries about the consultation that took place and about the number of those who responded who were in favour and the number of those who were not. On reading the note that I received from the officials, I was satisfied that there was certainly a significant positive response. There was also a large negative response but, in my opinion and obviously in that of the Government, not sufficiently so to stop the order going through. However, we should not think that there are not a significant number of objectionists to gaming of this kind—on Sundays, in particular.
	I am encouraged by the order. I know that another Bill is to be introduced on betting and gambling in the United Kingdom. I believe that the more open the laws, the better they are managed and the better and more easily they can be policed, the less opportunity there is for significant illegal betting on all kinds of things—that has always been part of Irish life—and it is hoped that that will lead to a reduction in social hardship of one kind and another. I may be dreaming. I see a smile on the face of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. But drinking and betting, and all that goes with it, have always been a problem in Northern Ireland. I believe that when a government change the laws in this area, they need to be aware of the social problems relating to legal and illegal gaming, gambling and betting on Sundays. If the order is to help the policing and management of such activities, as I believe is the Government's intention, I support it.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, we on these Benches echo the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. I believe that the order brings Northern Ireland into the 21st century. We accept that some people believe that the Sabbath should be kept. However, I do not believe that the order affects the rights of such people because, as the Minister pointed out, this is a question of individual choice. Those who want to keep the Sabbath can keep the Sabbath and those who want to make merry can make merry.

Lord Laird: My Lords, I am most grateful for the Minister's outline of the order. I rise today to make a few observations on it but, from the outset, I wish to add my support for the legislation as it seeks to bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom.
	First, I welcome Schedule 1, which concerns the rights of betting workers as respects Sunday working. I am pleased to see that the new protection rights against dismissal purely on the grounds that a track betting worker does not wish to work on a Sunday will apply irrespective of age, length of service or hours of work. Your Lordships will be aware that a great number of people in Northern Ireland do not wish to find themselves compelled to work on a Sunday for whatever reason—family, social or conscience—and it is only right that their views are respected.
	However, perhaps I may suggest that where, under the prescribed form "Statutory rights in relation to Sunday betting work", the words,
	"your employer . . . does something else detrimental to you",
	appear in paragraph 8(4) of Schedule 1, the word "detrimental" should be more clearly defined. The form gives the example of the employer failing to promote the employee, but other scenarios are apparent here. Does "detrimental" include failing to offer overtime or training opportunities, or does it go so far as to include a negative attitude, manifested in how the employee is spoken to and generally treated by the employer, which could seriously affect the employee's working life?
	Moreover, if we are building into the legislation protection for those who disagree with Sunday working, should we not also be looking to protect those of other religions, such as the Muslim and Jewish faiths? Should we not protect the right of workers from other religious groups to observe religious holidays and respect their requests not to work on them?
	I should also like the Minister to clarify the reasoning behind why the employee must give his employer three months' notice in order to opt out of Sunday working. That is absurd, given that most employers require only one month's notice to terminate a contract of employment. Why does the Minister expect it to take so long for a written notice to be adhered to?
	I am slightly concerned about the potential impact of Article 4 relating to the relaxation of some restrictions on betting on horse and dog tracks and, in particular, allowing permanent structures on licensed tracks to be used for bookmaking purposes. With opportunities for betting on all kinds of sporting and other events substantially increased, it logically follows that a larger amount of money will change hands at the track. Therefore, is there not room for concern regarding security at these premises and the safety of bookmakers and their staff?
	I also wish to raise some concerns about the reduction to one year of the notice and waiting periods for non-sporting clubs seeking registration under the 1985 order for gaming machine purposes. Can the Minister explain why that has been reduced and assure us that non-sporting clubs will undergo the same assessment procedure as before?
	I also ask the Minister to explain why the Department for Social Development would look more favourably upon certain licensed bookmaking offices when deciding how many gaming machines they may have. Indeed, why is the department to be involved at all, given that, as it would appear from other sections of the order, the responsibility for granting permits for gaming machines at other venues, such as amusement parks, lies with the district council?
	Article 10 outlines restrictions of access to gaming machines to people under the age of 18. I understand the intention of these provisions but wonder just how reasonable it is to expect all premises to ensure that £25-prize gaming machines are located in a separate area and protected by an effective physical barrier. Your Lordships will be aware that young people have a habit of duping bouncers into thinking that they are older, and they are often quite adept at knowing which establishments are more likely to let them in. Are we expecting someone—say, from the district council—to carry out routine assessments of such premises and instigate action against those who are not complying? Otherwise, how does the Minister expect these well intentioned provisions to be enforced?
	Finally, I hope that the Minister will say a few words to explain the staggered commencement date of the order. By not allowing the legislation to commence immediately, the Government are suggesting that they are somehow concerned about its implications and about how well it will be received.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken for the support they gave the order. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, was concerned about possible social hardship. As the package of measures is so modest, we do not consider that it will increase the social dangers of gambling for vulnerable people, but I take the noble Lord's point and I welcome his comments on the importance of transparency in the policing and management of the issue.
	The noble Lord, Lord Laird, asked a number of questions. On detriment he was particularly concerned about employment protection. All track betting workers employed by bookmakers and Tote operators based in Northern Ireland, except those contracted to work only on Sunday, will have the right not to be dismissed, not to be selected for redundancy, nor subjected to any other detriment such as exclusion from a general pay rise or bonus and discrimination in promotion and training opportunities for refusing to work on Sundays.
	Should an employee consider that he or she has suffered detriment, their employment rights may be enforced by way of a complaint to an industrial tribunal. The noble Lord, Lord Laird, will be aware that detriment is well defined in employment law and through case law.
	On whether we should be looking to protect those of other religious faiths, the employment protection provisions are included in the order because it introduces on-course betting on Sundays.
	On the issue of three months' notice, employers will be required to give every track betting worker who enters into a contractual agreement that includes Sunday working a written explanatory statement setting out their right to opt out. If an employer does not issue such a statement within two months of the worker entering such a contractual agreement, the three months' opting out notice period is reduced to one month. I hope that that response addresses the noble Lord's concern.
	I turn to the issue of permanent structures on licensed track. The security of these premises and the safety of bookmakers and their staff are primary commercial issues for the trade interests involved and, if appropriate, the police.
	The order will reduce notice and waiting periods for registration of clubs to one year to achieve parity with the notice and waiting periods for clubs applying for registration under the Registration of Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. The assessment procedure is otherwise unchanged.
	On the question of the involvement of district councils, bookmaking offices are adult-only environments considered suitable for the use of higher-prize gaming machines. When they are licensed by the courts for bookmaking purposes, they will be automatically entitled to a maximum of two gaming machines. The department has no operational role in the process. It is also considered unnecessary to involve district councils.
	Age was a major concern for the noble Lord, Lord Laird. If the conditions applying to a permit are not complied with to its satisfaction, the relevant district council may refuse to renew the permit. In addition, Article 120 of the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 provides that where any condition to which an amusement permit is subject is contravened, the permit holder will be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine of the statutory maximum, or six months' imprisonment, or both. On indictment, a fine, or imprisonment for two years, or both, apply. A court also has the power to cancel an amusement permit if the permit holder is convicted of an offence under Article 120.
	The noble Lord, Lord Laird, raised the issue of commencement dates. The Government do not have any implications about how well the order will be received. The staggered commencement dates are required mainly for administrative reasons. Those provisions coming into operation after three months are those for which trade, legal and other interests require notice to make the necessary arrangements. Those provisions that come into operation by commencement order will require subordinate legislation by both the Department for Social Development and the Northern Ireland Court Service. I hope that that response addresses the points made.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

New Opportunities Fund (Specification of Initiative) Order 2004

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 10 December 2003 be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this order specifies a new initiative to provide facilities and activities intended to reduce the social exclusion of young people, to be funded by the National Lottery through the New Opportunities Fund (NOF).
	I shall explain the process which brings us to this point. We made a commitment last July in the National Lottery funding decision document to establish a new lottery young people's fund. At present, as is well known, the New Opportunities Fund can distribute lottery money only on projects which are designed to give effect to initiatives specified in an order by the Secretary of State under Section 43(b) of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. Those are at present health, education and the environment. We are adding "young people" to that.
	Before I go further I should say that in my view the provisions of the draft order are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
	NOF funding has produced more than £2 billion to a range of initiatives within the categories of health, education and the environment, which are making a real difference to the lives of individuals and communities throughout the United Kingdom. Our proposals as set out in the decision document are designed to build on that success.
	The decision document announced our intention to set up a young people's fund, funded initially with £200 million from NOF's balances. Our aim is that the young people's fund might develop into a cross-distributor programme adding value by drawing together the various strands of activity relating to young people.
	The focus of the young people's fund will be on projects promoting youth inclusion—in other words, against social exclusion—specifically by providing facilities and activities both after school and in holiday periods. In England it will be very much in line with the aims and principles of the Green Paper, Every Child Matters, which we published last September. It will cover being healthy; staying safe; enjoying and achieving, including developing the skills for adulthood; making a positive contribution to the community; and overcoming socio-economic disadvantages to achieve full potential in life. In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland there will be a similar focus but it will be as determined by those nations to suit their own needs.
	We are carrying out consultation with groups of local children and young people and we shall complete that before we make decisions. Involving people in this way means that we shall be funding provision that young people feel ownership of and will want to use. We have carried out consultation which reveals, as I think is well known, that young people are particularly concerned about the phrase "having things to do". That comes out in many aspects of social research. They would like more places to go where they can not only spend time in a safe environment but have access to more structured activities.
	The young people's fund will be spread across the country but in order to help those most in need it will be targeted at those who are at greatest risk of social exclusion. It will build on the experience of previous initiatives including Splash, the lottery-funded Splash Extra and the Positive Activities for Young People initiatives.
	We have carried out an evaluation of the Positive Activities for Young People. That suggests that those involved in the scheme both as professionals and as young people perceive the programme as working, with evidence of increased school attendance; reduced noise and youth crime; improved behaviour; and improved community cohesion.
	Through the young people's fund we shall be able to offer young people an opportunity to take part in activities which they not only enjoy but which can help them to make a real difference to their lives and the communities in which they live.
	The responses to public consultation on the decision document have shown clear support for the development of a young people's fund. They build on the work which NOF has already done to help thousands of communities to improve their health, education and local environment. This fund will address the particular problems faced by young people at risk of social exclusion and will provide a welcome new focus for lottery funding for this age group. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10 December 2003 be approved. [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I begin by thanking the Minister for his clear explanation of the provisions specified in the draft order.
	As the Minister stated, the order establishes a new funding initiative, administered through the New Opportunities Fund by money raised as a result of National Lottery ticket sales. This new initiative, which will grant funding for facilities and activities, is intended to reduce the social exclusion of young people thus implementing the Government's proposal to establish a new lottery fund for young people. The initial funding for this initiative has been set at £200 million and the proposals are said to be closely aligned with the objectives detailed in the September 2003 Green Paper, Every Child Matters.
	I read with interest Hansard from yesterday's debate in the 4th Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation on the provisions of this draft order and I have a number of concerns, which I would be grateful if the Minister could address.
	To begin with, I am concerned that the term social exclusion is rather vague and non-committal. Whilst I understand that the precise scope of the fund is still under consideration, would the Minister agree that it is imperative that the ambit of such an initiative should be closely targeted and monitored to ensure that it is working effectively? Her Majesty's Opposition have often expressed unease at the method by which the Government have altered the mechanism of lottery funding since they came to power in 1997. This criticism relates to the way National Lottery funding has been used to further Government spending objectives. The Government appear to have become increasingly willing to intervene in the way that National Lottery money is spent.
	We welcome the assurance from the Minister in another place and the Minister's this evening that this new funding initiative will not be attributed to Government spending. However, we are keen to ensure that public confidence is restored, with lottery money being used to fund genuinely good causes, in particular helping young people and their communities. I should like to echo the concerns raised by the honourable Member for Surrey Heath yesterday in Committee in another place. The New Opportunities Fund must ensure that the money reaches the projects where it is needed and that any unnecessary bureaucracy is avoided.
	My Lords, make no mistake, I wish to support the purpose of this order. Indeed, as a mother with three teenagers, that phrase "having things to do" rings regularly in my mind. I remember being the same when I was a young person constantly complaining there was not anything to do. However, much depends on its effective implementation. We welcome the Government's commitment to promoting social inclusion for young people yet we believe that lottery funding should not be used to further Government spending targets or meet policy goals. The phrase "social inclusion" requires further thought and consultation and we welcome the Government's move to address this concern. It is for these reasons that we do not oppose this order and we hope that its objectives can be successfully achieved.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches also thank the Minister for explaining the order. I have to confess we have little enthusiasm for it. It continues the practice we deplore—the use of lottery money as a substitute for Exchequer spending. We have had discussions on this in the past. The New Opportunities Fund will now be permitted this additional project—a young people's fund—to add to the three which it already has: health, environment and education. The Minister has amplified some issues in the explanation. They all sound very worthy but are rather loosely presented. We would not disagree with any of them but we would not be so opposed to the setting-up of a young people's fund through lottery money if there were a clear good cause with long-term aims.
	In this order the vagueness of these proposals has been amplified by the Minister's amplifications. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has expressed some sympathy with them. I suppose if I thought a little longer I might well have the same sympathy. However, the irritation that the Government are meddling again in lottery funds makes that difficult for me to do. Perhaps tomorrow I may think more kindly of it. The Government are trying to do what is best left to the distributors. Persistent meddling of this kind with lottery funds goes directly counter to their own policy as stated in the July White Paper on the lottery. We would not have disagreed at all with the policy of additionality stated in it. All this takes place against a background of falling lottery sales that will ultimately dilute all of the good causes. Most of us have views on why sales are declining. I dare say the noble Baroness has similar views to mine. But when are the Government going to come out and tell us what their views are about this decline and what do they think can be done to address it?
	I take this opportunity to register a concern of noble Lords on these Benches. It is a concern, which has been echoed by the Government, about the £3 billion undistributed lottery moneys. They say that something will be done but nothing happens. What is going on? Is this some kind of float being used by the Government for future eventualities?
	To end, perhaps I may draw attention to the fact—because I think it is relevant—that since the lottery was introduced the DCMS budget has fallen by roughly one third. When registered as a percentage of GDP, in the year 1993–94 it was 0.16 per cent and in the year 2003–04 it has sunk to 0.11 per cent. In comparison with other countries the allocation for culture is absolutely pitiful. When represented as a percentage of state expenditure, the United Kingdom commits 0.29 per cent against 2.4 per cent, which is committed by both France and Germany.
	What kind of record is that when one considers the original aims of the lottery—and one does not need a very long memory—which we in this House and in another place agreed. I am sorry to take this rather jaundiced view of the order. Of course there is nothing that we can do about it, but it leaves a somewhat nasty taste in the mouth.

Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the order. I declare an interest as the chair of the New Opportunities Fund. It seems to us entirely appropriate that the programmes that the New Opportunities Fund funds continue to fit strategically with government priorities, while at the same time aiming to meet the needs and wants of young people at a local level, particularly those in disadvantaged areas.
	I have no doubt in assuring the House that the fund is a genuine good cause and that it will be spent in the interests of young people. In view of what has been said, perhaps I should also assure the House that the issue of balances is taken very seriously by the lottery distributors, as is the issue of additionality. The distributors feel just as strongly about that as do other noble Lords who have spoken.
	In preparation for the young peoples fund, the New Opportunities Fund has undertaken a mapping exercise of organisations and programmes working with young people, which resulted in a database of relevant projects. In addition, members of the fund have held informal meetings with key players in the youth sectors. There are a number of themes which we want to pursue through this fund, including helping children stay safe, supporting activities and facilities for young people, and enabling young people to contribute to their communities through grants to individuals or groups of young people.
	Once we receive the policy directions we will consult with key stakeholders in government departments and in the voluntary and community sector, outlining the prospectus or framework for the programme. We will also consult with young people. We aim to ensure that some elements of the fund are launched and open for activities by this summer and expect the remainder of the strands to be launched by the autumn.
	In conclusion, perhaps I may also point out that as young people have been involved in consultation about the programme they will also be involved in the evaluation of it, so that we can use this fund really to address the needs of this most important group.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am very grateful for the responses of my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and less grateful for the response of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is of course entirely right that it is important that what we do with this new initiative should be closely targeted and monitored—I think those were her words. I hope that she has been given some reassurance by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley.
	I would also add that the proposed work builds on the Positive Activities for Young People programme, which I described and which has been closely targeted and monitored and indeed can be well-defined as an appropriate good cause. The noble Baroness expressed some concerns about the way in which the objectives have been altered. The New Opportunities Fund has survived without its objectives being altered since the beginning. We were finding that the conditions on the New Opportunities Fund were a little tight. Confining them to concentrating on health, education and the environment meant that some things that were targeted on people rather than on themes did not fit into any of the categories. That will be possible now, with this additional initiative.
	The issue of additionality was raised particularly strongly when the legislation to set up the New Opportunities Fund was introduced. We argued that through in some detail in this House at the time—I remember it well. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is not right in thinking that it is necessary for public confidence to be restored. There has been continued public confidence. I certainly have not seen or heard the kind of generalised criticism that was anticipated when the New Opportunities Fund was set up.
	Similarly, it would not be right to follow the advice of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and leave the matter to the distributors. We the people ought to have a say in this. We have been successful; the distributors have been successful in maintaining what they want, which is an arm's-length approach from government and the assurance that we are not spending the money on things that the Government would otherwise do. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that it is important to avoid bureaucracy. I am glad that she welcomed the social inclusion element of this new initiative.
	I hope that the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, has helped to convince the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that we have a clear and specific good cause here, not least because we have piloted it in the positive action for young people. Of course we are concerned with the decline in lottery sales. We rely on Camelot to redress that with continued new marketing initiatives and new products. It has approached this imaginatively.
	The noble Viscount referred to "undistributed lottery money". It is only undistributed in the sense that it has not been taken up by those to whom it has already been committed. All lottery money, except for a margin, is committed. However, it is the nature of the beast that many of the projects to which it is committed take months or even years to complete. The money is not actually distributed until it is needed. In any case, any balances are held, and both the money and any interest on the money are devoted to good causes.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, talked about the DCMS budget falling as a percentage of GDP. The DCMS budget has not fallen in real terms. The economic policies of this Government have been so successful that GDP has been rising faster. Of course, we would all like more money for DCMS subjects. I will treasure his words and make sure that they are used in our submission for the 2004 spending review.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.40 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.34 to 8.40 p.m.]

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill

House again in Committee on Clause 1.

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 9:
	Page 1, line 8, at end insert—
	"( ) The RSS will set the spatial framework for the strategies of the regional development agency in its region."

Lord Hanningfield: This amendment would ensure that regional spatial strategies set the spatial frameworks for the economic strategies of the regional development agencies. The Bill is silent on how all the various regional strategies will relate to each other. Not only would this be a recipe for confusion, it could result in the strategies working against each other.
	We do not support these moves towards regional spatial strategies away from county structure plans, but we recognise that it is important that the different regional strategies are integrated and co-ordinated and that provision is made for this in the Bill. If it is left to guidance, the mechanism by which we can deliver joined-up policies at the regional level will remain unclear and will not be subject to a proper debate in Parliament.
	The drawing up of planning responsibilities from counties to regional planning bodies in the Bill reinforces the importance of having one overarching spatial framework at the regional level. The negative consequences of this fragmentation can at least be partly offset by a clear hierarchy, in which a regional development agency's objective of maximising economic performances does not unnecessarily conflict with a regional planning body's statutory duty to provide sustainable development.
	It is not a question of the RPBs controlling the RDAs; it is simply a question of recognising the potential for conflict between the two and ensuring that regional planning becomes a genuinely spatial framework. If the regional spatial strategy does not set the spatial framework for the strategies of the regional development agency in its region, it will be neither regional nor strategic. If the Minister does not support the amendment, can he explain exactly how the Government will prevent the achievement of important cost-cutting objectives such as reducing the need to travel being undermined by conflicting strategies that have equal status?
	There is one final issue to which I draw attention in support of the amendment—that of democratic accountability, which we have raised several times today. The Bill does not offer much comfort to those who believe in local democracy and it is deficient in the provisions it makes for community participation, as we mentioned earlier. Nevertheless, regional planning bodies will probably offer more scope for democratic input than regional development agencies. As such, it is better if the regional spatial strategy is in some sense a pre-eminent strategy for the region, as this will go some way towards helping to strengthen the democratic dimension at the regional level of decision-making. I beg to move.

Baroness Maddock: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 which are grouped with Amendment No. 9. Their purpose is similar to that outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, in Amendment No. 9. We seek to ensure that regional spatial strategies set a spatial framework for all other regional strategies, particularly—the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, referred to this point—the regional economic strategy. We believe that it also needs to be consistent with the regional sustainable development framework. We believe that, if regional spatial strategies replace all the regional planning guidance, we should ensure that we have an overarching regional spatial strategy that cuts across all other regional guidance.
	One reason for exploring that at this stage is that there is a danger that the opportunity will be missed to get this part of the Bill right. I gather that in Committee in another place the Government indicated that the guidance will set out a two-way relationship between the regional planning body and the regional development agency. I shall quote from Tony McNulty, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in another place. When discussing this matter in Committee he indicated that the regional spatial strategy and the regional economic strategy should "reflect each other", which to us sounds a little ambiguous. The draft New Planning Policy Statement 11—Regional Planning published for consultation in October 2003 states:
	"it is essential that the regional spatial strategy both shapes and is shaped by other regional strategies".
	Again, that could lead to some ambiguity and muddle. Experience has shown that despite the requirement for regional development agencies to further sustainable development in their operations, some in practice have actively tried to undermine the sustainable land use and transport objectives. There are several examples of that. I shall refer to a couple of them: first, a regional development agency in the north-east—where I live—was very resistant to higher brownfield housing targets in regional planning guidance, which other people thought would make better use of existing urban potential. Secondly, there was a problem in Birmingham—which the Minister may know about—where an enthusiastic regional development agency supported a western orbital road in the face of widespread criticism, which included an independent panel that had examined the draft of the regional planning guidance.
	If the Bill goes forward as set out, we need to try to sort out this point. It is important that the regional spatial strategy is a truly spatial framework. By definition it should integrate all the regional level planning strategies; and it should set the framework from within which other strategies operate, using their own expertise and resources to implement the spatial planning framework. I hope the Minister will recognise that from the discussion so far it is far from clear that we have the matter right in the Bill. I look forward to his comments.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I ask the Minister to say something about transport in the development of regional spatial strategies, particularly with regard to the plans developed by the delivery arms of transport, particularly the Strategic Rail Authority and the Highways Agency. Clearly, there is little point in regional strategies being drawn up that are simply wish lists of schemes that may well never take place. On the other hand, at the moment it is also clear that the kind of criteria that the Strategic Rail Authority or the Highways Agency use to develop their future schemes are rather different from those of the people drawing up the plans. I am quite keen to hear about how we can ensure that there is not some sort of mismatch between all those plan-making bodies.

Lord Marlesford: This is an important amendment, because it relates to time-scale. Economic and other developments, such as transport, come and go and are crucially important for those who are around today. However, we must consider how the country will be in the time of our children and grandchildren. If we do not get the long-term pattern right, we could do irreversible damage.
	I shall give what is perhaps a silly example, but one that helps to make the point. In a sense, setting up national parks was producing for those areas a regional spatial strategy—I do not myself like that particular bit of jargon, but no one has thought of anything better. That means that there are many other possible uses for national parks, which are not taken into account. I hope that no one would think of putting a new town in a national park, because that is not what national parks are about.
	The issue is the time-scale. If we get the spatial strategy right, we can have the economic and development policies that are appropriate to the time but do not pre-empt the long-term objective of keeping the country in the form in which we would wish to hand it on to our descendants.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is right in saying that this is an important short debate. I am impressed and interested that all Members of the Committee who have spoken are concerned to ensure that the regional spatial strategy should fit, work, interact and interrelate with other strategies in the region. Their amendments give voice to that concern.
	Amendment No. 9 would include a requirement that the regional spatial strategy should set the spatial framework for the economic strategy of the regional development agencies in each region. Amendment No. 11 would extend the requirement for the RSS to set the spatial framework to all regional level strategies in the region. As the regional economic strategy is simply one of a number of regional strategies, albeit a particularly important one, and for the reasons that have emerged in the few minutes in which the group has been discussed, it is important to take the amendments together.
	Taken at face value, we would all want to support the principle expressed in the amendments, although not the inclusion of such statements of detail in the Bill. It is absolutely right that the regional spatial strategy should set the spatial framework of other regional strategies in the region, although that must happen as part of a two-way process. That was what the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, was suggesting. The regional spatial strategy needs to be shaped by other regional strategies as well as shaping them.

Baroness Maddock: I wonder if I could clarify something. It was not me who suggested that; it was suggested by the Minister in another place. I am querying how practical it is, whether it is not a little ambiguous, and how we can ensure that it does what we want.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I take the point that the noble Baroness makes; I gathered that that was what she was after.
	I suspect, however, that the intention of the amendments is to make the regional spatial strategy pre-eminent among regional strategies. I believe that that was what the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, was after, and it is certainly what the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield was after. The Government do not believe that a hierarchical relationship with the RSS at the top would necessarily be appropriate.
	We would argue that each serves a different role and different function. What is essential is that those bodies responsible for drawing up the regional spatial strategy, whether economic or housing, work together to develop a shared understanding of the issues, objectives and opportunities. We emphasise that in draft Planning Policy Statement 11 on regional planning (PPS11). Even if securing pre-eminence for the regional spatial strategy among regional strategies is not the intention—it is clear that it is—the very fact that it could be construed as such means, we believe, that the amendments are flawed. Amendment No. 12 would amend Clause 1 to require the RSS to have regard to and be consistent with the regional sustainable development framework for the region.
	The problem is simple. We cannot set this out in legislation as the regional sustainable development framework has no statutory basis itself. It is flawed in that simple way. Broadly speaking, we are supportive of the principle that the RSS and the RSDF—although I hate the jargon it is necessary—should be complementary and work together and, more than that, mutually support one another. PPS11 makes clear that the RSDF is an essential part of the background against which regional strategies are prepared.
	We cannot support the hierarchical notion. We recognise the importance and centrality of the regional spatial strategy. But it is important that these things work together. While we understand and support the principle of that, we do not think that the amendment is necessarily the right way to achieve it. We believe that we have the provision already in PPS11.
	This short discussion is valuable. I understand the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, about the importance of democratic input. Given the fullness of time and the development of elected regional assemblies, we shall have that elected, democratic, over-arching body which we all support—although not the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield.

Baroness Hamwee: I am sorry to question the Utopian vision with which the Minister presents us, with every strategy being supportive of and consistent with each other. I wish I were quite so optimistic. I take the noble Lord's point that if there were elected regional government it would be easier to co-ordinate.
	Can the Minister explain to the Committee the basis of the other strategies referred to? Do the Government's guidance or papers have the same weight as regards the new planning policy statement for the regional spatial strategy? I realise that it is difficult to pursue the point without understanding the genesis of those other strategies. Are they created in the same way? Do they go through the same consultation procedures?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is unfortunate that the noble Baroness's question is not clearer.

Baroness Hamwee: The PPS11 to which the Minister referred states that the RSS should be consistent with and supportive of other regional frameworks and strategies including the RSDF and the regional, cultural, economic and housing strategies. How do those come about? Do they go through similar processes to the regional spatial strategy?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think that I can answer the noble Baroness. The regional spatial strategy takes forward the regional housing strategy. The regional transport strategy is part and parcel of the regional spatial strategy. If there is an inconsistency between draft revisions to a regional spatial strategy and a regional economic strategy, when they are examined and made public documents there would be an opportunity as part of a consultation process to ensure that any inconsistencies at that point are ironed out. The documents are published; they are there for consultation. In a sense, the other regional strategies get pulled into the spatial strategy and that is the overriding driver for it.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: Is the Minister confident that if a group of people or a society has a real problem with a decision that comes about and chooses to seek a judicial review, the processes that he has outlined, with all their fuzziness, would stand up to a judicial review challenge which would seek to demonstrate that a decision had not been made with due processes? It is very hard to pick out what those due processes might be.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think that the process would be robust, because it would be informed and the strategies would be the product of a form of consultation which would enable people, organisations, local authorities, agencies and others to offer their views as part of the process. They would play a part in the creation of those strategies in the document. The answer has to be, "Yes, we think that the processes are robust in themselves".

Lord Hanningfield: As the mover of the original amendment on this, I do not think that the Minister's replies have been that helpful. We feel—not just those of us in the Committee but also professionals and people who have been involved in creating all these strategies—that there could be a lot of confusion and that a definite system should be laid out so that everyone knows where they are. RDAs have considerable amounts of money which the planning side might not necessarily have. There could be undue influence because of the amount of money that RDAs have. There could be more influence from the RDAs over the regional spatial strategies than there should be. We are going to have to come back to this issue.
	We have noted what the Minister said, but—going back to an earlier subject of laughter—in some of these matters we are trying to help. If something is going to happen, it must work. I moved this amendment on the advice of professional people. Therefore, we should look at it again. I hope that the Minister will reflect on it.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am very pleased that the noble Lord has come back to this point in a very constructive way. I think that he is trying to be helpful here. I have outlined how we see the system working reasonably fairly and accurately, but we shall have a very close look at what has been said and endeavour to reflect on the important points that have been made.

Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for that comment. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 10 to 12 not moved.]

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 13:
	Page 1, line 14, leave out subsections (5) and (6).

Lord Hanningfield: Amendment No. 13 aims to remove the power of the Secretary of State to make existing regional planning guidance, or parts of it, part of the regional spatial strategy, and so part of the development plan, without going through the procedures outlined in Part 1 of the Bill. The removal of subsection (6) is consequential.
	This is a complicated amendment, but we feel it is very important. To elaborate further, Clause 1(5) strikes me as a strange and unwelcome piece of drafting. While the rest of Part 1 of the Bill establishes regional spatial strategies—what they are, how they will be revised and so on—subsection (5) undermines all of that by empowering the Secretary of State to decide which bits of regional planning guidance he wants to be in the regional spatial strategy for a region. Can the Minister explain why the Bill establishes the procedures for regional planning bodies to follow in order to produce regional spatial strategies—only for it to render those redundant by giving the Secretary of State the power to dictate what will constitute a regional spatial strategy—without going through any of the processes thought necessary for the construction of the spatial strategy as set out in Part 1?
	I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 47 and 48. The Bill contains the procedure for the preparation of revisions of the regional spatial strategy. Clauses 5 to 11 assume that there is a regional spatial strategy and that the responsibility of a regional planning body is to prepare a draft revision.
	There are two reasons why a procedure for adopting a regional spatial strategy is necessary; one is practical, the other is principled. The practical reason is that the Bill does not put in place a regional spatial strategy by some other means. Under Clause 1(1) there is to be a regional spatial strategy. But there is merely a power to make regional planning guidance the regional spatial strategy for a region in Clause 1(5). Even if that power remains, it will not be necessary to exercise it. Furthermore, the existing regional planning guidance might be inappropriate as a regional spatial strategy.
	I hope that I have made myself clear on all that, but it is very complicated. I just about understand it myself. I do not know whether I have been able to explain it to everyone else.
	A regional spatial strategy is, after all, different; the Government intended it to be part of a development plan; they intend more weight to be attached to it; and they intend local development plan documents to be in general conformity with it. Draft Planning Policy Statement 11, on regional planning, says that these documents are intended to be more specific. So there needs to be a procedure to create a regional spatial strategy from scratch. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: Our Amendment No. 23 is in this group—which at least takes us on to page 2 of the Bill. Clause 3(1) provides that the regional planning body must keep the regional spatial strategy under review. We suggest that rather than it being required to do so,
	"it shall have regard to the need to".
	That is perhaps a little tongue in cheek. The philosophical and political point is the autonomy and discretion of the regional planning body. The tongue in cheek bit is that they might think that the regional spatial strategy which they have inherited from the Secretary of State is so perfect that they do not need to revise it.

Lord Cobbold: Amendment No. 24, in my name, is also in this group. As it raises an issue that has already been much discussed today, I shall be brief.
	The idea is that the new regional planning bodies will have no influence on the initial RSS but only on its subsequent revision. The initial RSS is defined in Clause 1(5) as,
	"so much of the regional planning guidance relating to the region as the Secretary of State prescribes".
	The initial RSS is thus 100 per cent top down. While accepting that that deals with the problem of a possible vacuum in the transitional period, I think that the new regional planning bodies should have some input on the initial RSS and that the Bill should reflect that, if only the right to comment and to seek early review.
	As I said, this matter has already been much discussed. I do not expect the Minister to change the views that have already been expressed on this issue.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, made it clear that the amendments are really about making regional planning bodies start from scratch—I think that that is what he is after—in preparing a regional spatial strategy under the new arrangements, rather than allowing them to build on existing regional planning guidance.
	Amendment No. 13 would delete from Clause 1 those subsections that provide for the Secretary of State to convert such guidance as he prescribes into regional spatial strategies. We do not see why the noble Lord would want to delete what seems to us such a commonsense provision. It is our intention that all current regional planning guidance, perhaps with a few exceptions, will be converted into an RSS in regulations. Those exceptions—which are worth recording—will be RPGs 3 (London), 3a (Strategic Views in London), 3b and 9b (River Thames) and 9a (Thames Gateway).
	These documents will be replaced in large part by the Mayor's London Plan and were not subject to public examination when they were prepared. In other words, each region will have a regional plan from the outset. We accept that those regional plans will not be perfect—we expect them to be revised over the next few years and turned into more genuinely spatial strategies—but nor should they be tossed aside. They express important regional policies that have been built up over the years and reflect the input of people across the region.
	The consequence of not converting RPG in each region to RSS would be serious. It would leave a gap, certainly in the transition period and perhaps beyond that, prior to the preparation of a new RSS—a process that would take at least two years—in which there was no strategic regional level development plan document. We do not believe that it is sensible or practical in terms of regional planning for there to be no strategic regional level development plan document. This would make the preparation of new local plans almost impossible. It would create uncertainty for communities, developers and business. We do not believe that is desirable particularly in terms of economic regeneration.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, referred to Amendments Nos. 47 and 48. Amendment No. 47 would insert a new clause after Clause 4 to require the RPB to prepare a draft RSS if no RSS had been prescribed for the region or part of the region and apply Clauses 5 to 11 to the preparation of a draft RSS in the same way that they apply to the preparation of a draft revision of the RSS. I hope that the noble Lord followed that.
	Amendment No. 48 would insert a new clause after Clause 4 to require the RPB to prepare the draft RSS and apply Clauses 5 to 11 to the preparation of a draft RSS in the same way that they apply to the preparation of a draft revision of the RSS.
	Let me deal with these two amendments together as they are very similar. If the Committee accepts that Amendment No. 13 will be damaging, these amendments become unnecessary. As I have said, we can envisage no situation where it would be helpful for there to be no RSS for the region and the RPB to start from a completely blank sheet of paper. A revision of an RSS can and often should represent the opportunity for a radical reworking of the existing document. It is certainly not about tinkering at the edges. The Bill already provides for the RPB to do exactly that. The current wording does not need to be changed.
	Amendment No. 23 would amend Clause 3 to require the regional planning body (RPB) to have regard to the need to keep under review the regional spatial strategy rather than simply stating that it must keep the RSS under review. We do not think that that amendment is helpful. Keeping the RSS under review is a central function of the RPB. The current wording of the Bill is clear and succinct in that regard.
	Amendment No. 24 would amend Clause 3 to require the RPB to prepare the RSS as well as keep it under review. This amendment does not seem to us to be necessary. Clause 5(1) already provides that the RPB must prepare a draft revision of the RSS when it thinks it is necessary to do so, at such time as is prescribed or if directed by the Secretary of State. If the purpose of the amendment is to enable the RPB to prepare an RSS from scratch, I believe that we have already covered why that provision is not required.
	For all those reasons we do not think that these amendments are helpful although we understand and appreciate the spirit in which they were tabled. With those comments I hope that noble Lords will not feel the need to press the amendments.

Baroness Hanham: Before the Minister sits down, I wish to say that such issues take us back to a discussion that we had earlier. I am afraid that it is boringly repetitive. The Bill does not say anywhere, nor does the guidance in PPS 11, that the regional planning body is responsible for the preparation of the regional spatial strategy. But that is what it amounts to: the regional planning guidance will be the prescribed part of any regional planning guidance to form the basis of the regional spatial strategy; but the regional planning body will then be responsible for ensuring that the regional spatial strategy is issued, implemented and reviewed.
	Half of the mischief is that the Bill does not say that. It does not mention the regional planning body in terms of the initial regional spatial strategy, nor does it in planning PPS 11. We will need to insert that in Clause 1 or 2, because that is its role. It may be, as part of that, that the regional planning body will then "take account of" or "have regard to" the regional planning guidance as laid down by the Secretary of State. As I said earlier, there is a lacuna here that the Minister may wish to address now. If not, or if there has not been a satisfactory answer, we will have to move an amendment at the next stage to try to insert that provision.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have listened to the noble Baroness, but I thought that Clause 5 made clear that the regional planning body did have particular responsibilities. Clause 5(1) does say:
	"The RPB must prepare a draft revision of the RSS".
	The point is that the regional planning body inherits a body of knowledge, of experience, from what is there already. So, in a sense, we are talking about a strategy for dealing with revisions; that is what is required. It is not as though we are starting from scratch. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, wants us to start from scratch, but we do not. We do not start this with a blank sheet of paper—we already have certain matters in place. Those strategies are there. In the real world we are talking about a strategy for revising and keeping that process going. I said earlier that we foresee potential for radical revisions of the current approach and strategy. Yes, there is something in place; yes, changes are expected; but we are talking here about having a process of revision, even though those revisions may be fundamental. That is our approach, it is quite plain in the Bill and I think that I have made it plain in this debate.

Baroness Hanham: I am sorry that the matter has become tedious. The provisional regional spatial strategy is an initial document that arises out of subsections (1) and (2), but it does not say anywhere who is responsible for it other than to state that what the Secretary of State provides in the regional planning guidance is a mandatory part of the spatial strategy.
	Clause 5 deals with revision of the RSS. The regional spatial strategy covers 15 to 20 years. It is proper for it to be revised. It cannot possibly stand as a document for 20 years without revision. That is what I understand Clause 5 to be about; but we have not yet reached it. I am complaining about the initial regional spatial strategy which is, apparently, to be dealt with by the regional planning body, but nowhere in the Bill does it say that that is the situation.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think that it is self-evident, it is axiomatic, that the regional planning body undertakes that process. I am sorry that the noble Baroness is not clear on that. If we need to do more to add clarification then we will be happy to clarify that in correspondence and share that with other noble Lords who have taken part in such an entertaining debate.

Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for such an entertaining and short debate. His comments have clarified the Government's position. We are simply turning all the regional planning guidance that we have now into regional planning strategies. That is contrary to most of our discussions about consultations that involve people. For the time being we shall have to accept regional planning guidance as regional planning strategies. That point has therefore been clarified. In response to my amendment, we would have liked the new regional planning bodies to sit down, look at the problems of their region and devise their own strategies. But that clearly is not what the Government intend—

Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is important that the noble Lord understands that that is exactly what they will do. However, they cannot start from scratch because the world goes on. I made it plain that we cannot have a situation in which there is a gap of a year or two when nothing much happens because, self evidently, no strategic plan is in place.
	If the noble Lord really wants the East Anglian economy to grind to a halt—it would not do so—because of the absence of a powerful economic strategy for the region, he can wish that on the greater region which is the county of Essex.

Baroness Hamwee: I wonder whether I can enter into the debate. I think I understand the sequence the Government are proposing, but it requires a regional planning body to be in place immediately in order to start thinking about revisions. Clause 2 provides that the Secretary of State may give a direction recognising an RPB. Can the Minister fill in any gaps about timetabling around that? Assuming that ultimately the amendment carried today does not remain in the same form—and who knows?—what timetable do the Government have in mind for creating the RPBs so that they can inherit an RPG, get on with it and turn it into their own RSS?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am reminded by my noble friend Lord Rooker that since last April the regional chamber has been performing that responsibility. Therefore, a structure is already in place.

Lord Hanningfield: We have had a considerable debate and we must return to these issues. The Minister has clarified the Government's position and we know how the proposals will work. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 2 [Regional planning bodies]:

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendments Nos. 14 and 15:
	Page 2, line 3, leave out from beginning to "region" in line 4 and insert "The elected assembly shall be the regional planning body for the"
	Page 2, line 6, leave out subsections (2) to (6).

Baroness Hamwee: I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Ampthill: Amendment No. 15 having been agreed to, I am unable to call Amendments Nos. 16 to 22. I should perhaps have mentioned that matter before, but I am sure your Lordships were aware of it.

[Amendments Nos. 16 to 22 not moved.]
	Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 3 [RPB: general functions]:
	[Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.]

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 25:
	Page 2, line 20, leave out "may be expected to"

Lord Hanningfield: We have moved on faster than we thought and we must therefore collect our thoughts as we move to Amendments Nos. 25 and 26. With this technical amendment, we return to the discussions that we have just had. We consider it right for the regional planning body to keep under review the regional spatial strategy. Surely, a given function of the planning system, and for those who oversee it, is to monitor existing policies to ensure that they continue to deliver the most effective planning framework for their area.
	However, I am very concerned that the rest of the clause seeks to prescribe to the regional planning body in a great deal of detail—earlier today the Ministers said that they did not want too much data—exactly how and when reports to the Secretary of State should be made. I will come on to that matter later.
	In Clause 2(3), the regional planning body is charged with keeping under review matters which may be expected to affect development in its area. Those are the words used, but it is not clear to me what is meant by the phrase,
	"which may be expected to affect".
	What is the difference between saying that and saying simply "matters which affect"? To my mind, either something is relevant to the development of an area, in which case it should be kept under review, or it is not, in which case it need not be kept under review. I do not see what is to be gained by muddying the waters in this way.
	The language used here is imprecise and too general and it should be removed from the Bill. Regional planning bodies must have a duty to keep abreast of current issues—as we discussed just now—which might have an impact on development in their area. In doing that, they will be taking a flawed view. The current wording in the Bill does nothing to clarify that.
	Amendment No. 26 is also a technical amendment. Put simply, we believe that reference in the Bill to the planning of development draws an unnecessary and unhelpful distinction with "development" plain and simple.
	The sentiments of the entire Bill are that a new planning system should have the ability to be proactive and more flexible in its approach to development. It is obvious that, in keeping under review matters affecting development in the region, that must include the planning of development. Indeed, it is hard to see what else it could mean or what else a planning authority would be doing in keeping a spatial strategy under review. I beg to move.

Lord Ampthill: As the noble Lord has also spoken to Amendment No. 26, I should remind the Committee that, if that amendment is agreed to, it will be impossible to call Amendment No. 28.

Lord Greaves: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 29, which are grouped with the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. They do not concern the same matter but they relate to the same part of the Bill. That is presumably why they have been grouped in this manner.
	The reason for tabling the amendments is, again, to attempt to point a dagger at one of the essential issues at the heart of the Bill—that is, whether its purpose is to enhance and assist development per se or whether it is to improve and enhance the planning system in all its aspects. Clause 3 has the heading "RPB: general functions". Subsection (2) states:
	"The RPB must keep under review the matters which may be expected to affect—
	(a) development in its region or any part of the region;
	(b) the planning of that development".
	It does not say anything else. It does not say anything about the use of land in general; it does not say anything about improving the quality of the environment; it does not say anything about planning not to develop part of it but preserving it or enhancing its existing uses, which under planning law would not amount to development; and it does not talk about maintenance and management of the physical environment of the region. It simply talks about development.
	There is a presumption here of change, of movement and of applications to do things and change uses. There is a presumption that that is what the Bill is all about but it seems to me that that is flawed. Good planning is, indeed, about the encouragement and management of good development. But it is also about resisting development where that is the sensible thing to do. It is about enhancing the environment and about enhancing the other matters that have been referred to in the context of sustainable development.
	Therefore, at line 23 I would like to leave out subsection (2)(b). Subsection (2)(a) refers specifically to
	"development in its region or any part of the region".
	My Amendment No. 27 would replace paragraph (b) with,
	"the planning and management of that development and other use of land and of the quality of the environment".
	I am looking for a balanced approach, not a static approach that says there must be no change and no development. I am building on what the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said earlier this evening about the importance of planning in, for example, preserving and enhancing the countryside. Often that does not involve development, but it is an important part of planning. There are of course many others.
	At the end of line 23, which refers to the planning of that development, my Amendment No. 28 would insert,
	"and other use of land".
	The planning system is not about development alone, but the use of land overall. Some of that is changing uses and developing land, some of it is resisting change and development.
	Amendment No. 29 would add a further paragraph to subsection (2), so that the RPB must keep under review the matters which may be expected to affect not just development and the planning of the development, but also,
	"the quality of the environment in its region or any part of its region".
	That is a test of how genuinely the Government are looking to the new planning system not just to develop change or to promote development in the interests of faster economic growth, but to create a balanced approach that also considers the quality of the country in which we are living and all aspects of its environment.
	In researching Clause 3 I searched in the Bill for a definition of development. Like many other definitions in the Bill, it is the same as in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. What is the meaning of development in the Bill? Am I right in believing that it is defined in Section 55 of the 1990 Act? If I am not right, will the noble Lord tell the Committee where it is defined and on which definition we are working?
	Section 55 reads:
	"Subject to the following provisions of this section, in this Act, except where the context otherwise requires, "development," means the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in the use of any building or other land".
	I believe that all of us who have ever been involved in the planning system in any way at any level are used to that definition of development and I am happy with it. But if this is the meaning of development in Clause 3, it means that it is just one part of the planning system when surely the regional planning board should be keeping under review the entire purpose of the planning system, which is maintenance of the physical environment in which we live and not just managing the change in that environment for economic progress.

Baroness Hamwee: It occurred to me to build on what my noble friend has just said. Clause 38 requires, among other things, any person or body exercising the function under Part 1 to do so,
	"with a view to contributing to the achievement of sustainable development".
	It could not do so and therefore have any meaning without some addition such as that proposed by my noble friend, because of the rather constricted nature of the description of its duties under Clause 3(2). I very warmly support, as I would have done anyway, the amendment spoken to by my noble friend. However, linking those two together adds to the need to be clearer in this early part of the Bill.

Lord Rooker: I think I have the answers; I hope that I have. The amendments all look to find a better form of words than we have so far discovered, with the help of the parliamentary draftsman, to express the regional planning board's review function in relation to what is happening in its region. In answer to a question on the previous debate, as far as the regional planning board is concerned, we intend to issue directions recognising bodies as regional planning boards very shortly after the commencement of the legislation. In other words, there will be no gap. I hope that that satisfies the noble Baroness.
	We do not think that we are fundamentally at odds with what we think the regional planning board should be doing in that regard; that is, its functions in relation to what is happening in its region. The regional spatial strategy sets out the spatial strategy for the region over a 15 to 20-year period. It is essential that the regional planning board reviews whether development is being planned and undertaken in accordance with that strategy having due regard to the economic, social and environmental considerations and the need to integrate land use and other policies. I shall explain briefly why I think the amendments do not improve what is currently set out in the Bill.
	Amendment No. 25 would amend Clause 3(2) to require the regional planning board to keep under review those matters that affect the development of its region or the planning of that development, rather than requiring it to keep under review matters which may be expected to affect these things.
	We are expecting the regional planning body to look forward as well as reviewing what is happening now. It will not always be possible to determine precisely what may affect development in its region—change in national policy, demographic changes, and so forth—but we would expect the regional planning board to be proactive about considering these, not restricted to considering only matters that it could be sure would affect development. That would be the effect of the amendment, so it would be somewhat restrictive.
	Amendment No. 26 would remove from Clause 3(2) the requirement for the regional planning body to keep under review those matters that it expected to affect the planning of development. It is rather strange that a regional planning body should not be expected to keep under review such matters. It is absolutely the regional planning board's role to take a step back and review not just development in the region but how that development has been planned for. As noble Lords will be aware, the Bill places a requirement for local development documents to be in general conformity with the regional spatial strategy and for local planning authorities to request the regional planning board's opinion on this issue. Central to the regional planning board's function is ensuring that at a local level the planning of development is taking place in line with the strategic regional framework.
	In that respect, Clause 3(2) refers to development. That includes the use of land in planning legislation and it is unnecessary to state that specifically; that is, under Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The planning of development, including the use of land, covers both conservation and change. I assume that there are accepted definitions of what we are referring to in the Bill, which have been tried and tested in the courts in the past. So, from our point of view we are in no doubt about what "development" means.
	Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 29 overlap but collectively they would amend Clause 3(2). I keep referring to "regional planning board" and "regional planning body". So far as I am concerned it should be "regional planning body", otherwise people will think that there is another body. I am reluctant to use initials. It sounds appalling if anybody ever tunes in. What I said at Question Time was bad enough today but to use initials is terrible.
	I shall start again. Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 29 overlap but collectively they would amend Clause 3(2) to require the regional planning body to keep under review not simply those matters that it expected to affect the planning of development but also the management of that development, the other use of land and the quality of the environment.
	These amendments appear to swing a little too far the other way. It is properly the regional planning body's job to review what development is taking place and how that is being planned for. However, "management of that development" implies oversight that relates to operational rather than strategic matters. That is what management means: executive action; looking at things; making things happen on the ground. This is not the regional planning board's role. In case there is any misunderstanding, that is the situation. Creating the regional spatial strategies that look beyond narrow development considerations is at the heart of what we want to achieve.
	Land use should not just be considered in terms of development, but also in terms of what is happening on the land—what sort of environment is being created in that space—and in terms of preservation of the natural environment. The consultation draft of Planning Policy Statement 7 on Sustainable Development in Rural Areas states,
	"Planning authorities should continue to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscapes and wildlife and the wealth of its natural resources."
	Sustainability is at the heart of the policies of my department. As the Committee will be aware, the Bill places a requirement on those making and implementing plans to do so with a view to contributing to the achievements of sustainable development. I daresay we shall have an over-long debate when we reach Clause 38.
	We can agree with much of the intention of this amendment, but it is simply not necessary. Spatial and environmental considerations are already embedded in the regional planning body's survey role. I hope that is a satisfactory explanation on the definition of development to satisfy noble Lords that the amendments are unnecessary. As I said, we agree with the intention of them and I have every confidence that the issues will be covered in reality.

Lord Marlesford: I have great sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is saying. The Minister quoted those splendid words from, I think, Planning Policy Statement 7. Those are the sort of words I would like to see in the Bill. Is there any way in which that can be contrived?

Lord Rooker: You cannot have everything in a Bill. We have a consultation draft out at the moment. It has been out for some time. I am not sure when consultation finishes. I remember I was part and parcel of the initial development and drafting of this when I was responsible for planning. The Government, through the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, through the publication of Planning Policy Statement 7 on Sustainable Development in Rural Areas is saying those wonderful words. They are a statement of government policy. Planning authorities will be expected to make a reality of those words. Just because they are not in this Bill but in a planning policy statement on sustainable development in rural areas does not devalue them.
	We expect that planning decisions made in rural areas will fit that definition of requirement to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character. That is very difficult to define but we know what we mean by it. I know what I mean by the intrinsic character of the beauty and diversity of the landscape and the wildlife and the wealth of its natural resources. We do not need to put that in this Bill. It is already written in a government document that will have to be followed as Planning Policy Statement 7 when it becomes a final document. I do not expect those words to change.

Lord Marlesford: The difference between a Bill and a planning policy statement is that a Bill is much more permanent. I am not saying that we should have all or exactly those words. Planning policy guidance—as it was—can, has been and needs to be changed. When one gets the rather general but very important intentions referred to in the new wording in PPS7, it would be nice to feel that that could be enshrined in primary legislation because, as we all know, other things are easier to change. Although I would have confidence that this Government would implement it, the Bill may well last longer than that.

Lord Rooker: All I can say to that is this is one quote that was offered in my speaking notes. I know and remember from the early drafts of the document that there are hundreds of such wonderful words in PPS7 on the rural areas, about which noble Lords could urge, "Get it in the Bill because it will last longer". But it is not possible to put that form of wording in primary legislation.
	I suspect that the parliamentary draftsmen would find that quote appalling. Hence, the difficulty we have had on Clause 38—with which we shall deal at some length later on—in trying to get a form of words that puts across the required meaning, that is not worthless but which does not have the effect of allowing people all over the country to stop development in its tracks.
	I do not know for how long the previous PPS lasted on rural areas—quite a while. This one will last for some time. It is a major statement from the department. It is in no way devalued by the fact that those words are not in the Bill. I will not satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, but we are at one in our aim to make sure that those words are a reality so far as concerns planning authorities.

Lord Greaves: The issue has become more interesting as a result of the Minister's reply. It was quite fundamental to a major flaw within the legislation. What the Minister seems to be telling the Committee is that it does not matter what is on the face of the Bill—we do not need to put anything there—because it is all going to be in documents issued by his department and sent out to people in the country; and nowadays what matters really is documents sent out by his department and not what Parliament actually entrenches as the law.
	There is a fundamental difference between the two. We are talking about documents which the Government can or might change. Even this Government will not last for ever. They think they will, but they will not.

Lord Rooker: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. Honestly, what the noble Lord is spouting is absolute rubbish. I want to explain why and to give him an example. If a planning application is dealt with one way or the other and ends up with an appeal, it will go before the planning inspectors, which are independent bodies. In arriving at a decision on whether that planning application is good or bad, a range of issues will be put before that inspector, including not just primary legislation because that is not detailed enough but all the other guidance, documents and statements from which I have quoted.
	The noble Lord may say, "Well, it did not go to Parliament. The Government have issued what they wanted". The planning inspectors will issue reports on whether or not to allow an appeal, which will go to the Secretary of State. If the precise rules are not followed then we will be subject to a judicial review. So the noble Lord's idea which implied that we act on a whim, that we are bypassing Parliament and that these things do not matter, frankly is absolute rubbish. I feel that he devalues the debate by what he has just said.

Lord Greaves: I understand how the planning and appeal system works. I have been involved with it on many occasions. And of course what the Minister says is quite right—not that I am talking rubbish.
	The point I am making is that there is a fundamental difference. The Minister can indulge in all the personal abuse he wants, but it does not alter the fact that there is a fundamental difference between what is on the face of legislation and what is issued by the Government under that legislation. That might carry a great deal of weight. Because it is detailed, it might be what carries most weight of all the advice that goes to the planning authorities, the development control authorities and the inspector dealing with the appeal. That is not the point that I am making. What fundamentally matters is the primary legislation.
	We are not asking for all these great, exciting, flowery statements telling us what a wonderful countryside we want to live in to appear in the legislation. All that I am asking for in these amendments is some balance in what is set out in the Bill. What I am proposing is hardly longer than what is set out in the Bill, but it provides the balance. As far as I understood what the Minister said in response to my amendments, he agreed with them. He thought that they were basically right. That is what the Government were going to do, but he will not put them in the Bill. He did not provide any good reasons for that. I will read Hansard carefully, and I will read what the Minister said carefully, before deciding what further to do.
	The Minister is saying, "let us have a one-page Bill that simply says there shall be a new planning system, and the details of this new planning system will be issued in statements sent out by the department". Let us argue each issue on its merits, and not on whether we are adding or taking out a few words in an overlong Bill.
	I asked whether the definition of "development" that is to be understood in reading this Bill is the definition set out in Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. If the Minister cannot give me an answer now, I would like it in writing. It is important. Is it the Government's view that the definition of "development" includes no change? Does it include a situation in which in planning terms there is no change, in other words, no material change in the use of land and no actual physical development that classes as development requiring planning permission? Is a "no change" situation in planning terms encompassed by the word "development"? If it is, that is a new definition of the word "development" that we have never heard before, but it is one that we would like to take away and think about.

Lord Rooker: With respect, I have not given any personal abuse to the noble Lord—far from it. I criticised the tone of his speech. When I spoke, I specifically answered both the questions that he just asked me. I can repeat what I said—I will repeat it now, so it will force him to read Hansard tomorrow. I said that Clause 3(2) refers to development. This includes the use of land in planning legislation and it is therefore unnecessary to say specifically "i.e. that it is under Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990". I said that when I spoke to start with in answer to the debate.
	The answer to his question is "yes", but that is the reason why it is not specifically defined as such. I also said separately, but speaking at the same time, that planning of development including the use of land covers both conservation and change. One could argue that conservation might be doing nothing. In certain circumstances it may mean making adjustments, but it covers both conservation and change. With respect, if the noble Lord is still unclear, he can come back to me, but I answered both those questions—both legitimate questions—when I originally replied to the debate.

Lord Greaves: I will be brief. I heard exactly what the Minister said when he replied. I did not understand what he was saying. I still do not understand what he is saying. That might be my fault; I will read it carefully in Hansard. The question that he has not answered is where the definition of the word "development" is in this Bill. Where do we go to for a definition of what the word means?

Lord Rooker: I actually said that because of the way "development" is referred to here, this includes—this is the way the accepted term is used—the use of land in planning legislation. It is therefore unnecessary to say specifically "i.e. that it is under Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990". We think Clause 113 may be relevant, but I need to check that. We may have something that will help the noble Lord—it will certainly help me. Clause 113(1) states:
	"Expressions used in this Act and in the principal Act have the same meaning in this Act as in that Act".
	That covers it: the principal Act is the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. There will not be different definitions of the same word in the principal and the non-principal Act. Referring to the other Act as the principal Act does not mean that we devalue this Bill—it is no less important because it is not the principal Act. However, the definitions of the words are the same. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord.

Lord Greaves: I think the Minister is making my point for me, but I will do some more research on it.

Lord Hanningfield: I should like to come back to my original two amendments. I have some sympathy with the Minister; he has his parliamentary draftsmen, but I am sure that everyone preparing amendments is also getting advice and support from planning barristers, for example. I do not want to keep going over what "development" means, but there is some dispute over what development and the planning of development mean among people who participate in the legal side of planning. My amendments were intended to be helpful; they come from people who have been giving me advice on the Bill.
	We have had this discussion backwards and forwards, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has said, and we will read what was said in Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 26 to 29 not moved.]

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 30:
	Page 2, line 28, leave out subsections (4) and (5).

Lord Hanningfield: This amendment would remove the duty on regional planning bodies to prepare an annual report for the Secretary of State on the implementation of the regional spatial strategy for a region.
	We accept that a regional planning body should be monitoring and, if necessary, should be in a position to report on how a regional spatial strategy is being implemented. Subsections (2) and (3) of this clause more than satisfactorily make provision for that.
	What the Bill proposes, however, is an unnecessary and expensive burden on a regional planning body. I think that generally, in their approach to other tiers of government, central government places undue faith on the virtues of reporting upwards. Of course, that may be a particular fault of these proposals—perhaps where there is no democratic accountability, there is no mechanism other than to report to the Secretary of State for ensuring high-quality performance.
	Reporting requirements may look innocuous in the context of a piece of legislation, but I can assure your Lordships that they look very different on the ground. They can be exhausting. In some instances, they drain the organisation of resources, manpower and motivation. To have officers working round the clock to produce reams of paper, endless reports to satisfy the insatiable demands of government departments, is futile and detracts from what the organisation is meant to be doing—that is, providing a service.
	As the Bill is drafted, the Secretary of State would have complete control over what the regional planning bodies will have to show him at the end of each year. I fail to see how the House can pass a measure of this sort without having an extremely good idea about exactly what these reporting requirements will consist of. Without knowing how onerous they will be, it is difficult to form a judgment about their utility.
	As all noble Lords know, regulation through reporting is a fairly blunt instrument. It depends on the notion of balance—balancing the level of risk involved against the harm that might result from something going wrong. I should have thought, from the Secretary of State's point of view at least, that there is very little that can go wrong. The Secretary of State is all over these provisions. To describe the provisions protecting the Secretary of State's interests as belt and braces would be to undersell them. There is in the Bill every conceivable mechanism to ensure that the Secretary of State's interests are protected. This is simply another such mechanism. I am sure that the Minister will be sceptical about the value of this amendment, but he will recognise that a process that lends itself to annual reporting also lends itself to arbitrary, counter-productive box-ticking. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: I have also added my name to the amendment, but not because we do not believe that reporting is an important activity—clearly it is. Our objection is to the prescriptive nature of the function. If the regional planning body is required to undertake its other functions, at least it could be given discretion as to when and how it reports and not have to do so to a pattern or to the tune of the Secretary of State. Other points have been made earlier and I support the deletion of these provisions.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am amused by this amendment. I am sorry but I shall make an accusation. I know it is late but I shall not detain the Committee long. I believe that noble Lords opposite should indulge in joined-up opposition. On a number of occasions I have spoken from the Dispatch Box against an amendment moved from the Benches opposite seeking to impose the duty of an annual report on the Government. Here we have an amendment to do exactly the opposite. I have often teased the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, that when stuck for an amendment on which to defeat the Government, the Opposition bring forward one that imposes a duty of an annual report. I am somewhat staggered by this amendment.
	I am particularly amused and somewhat surprised, given that we have heard much about democracy and accountability in the context of the Bill. We believe that it is right that the regional planning body has placed upon it a duty to monitor and to prepare an annual report on the implementation of regional spatial strategies. It makes perfectly good sense to us. Planning is a continuous, ongoing process which needs to be reviewed and considered. We believe that it is absolutely essential. This amendment would drive a hole through what we believe is the very important process of review and monitoring. We also believe that that is how the regional planning body can keep a check on whether the strategy is effective and working and what changes need to be made.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said that it was a burden. He probably wanted to know more of the detail. I shall provide that now as it is right that we do so. We expect regulations under Part 1 of the Bill, which we published in draft for consultation, to require the regional planning body to do the following: it must identify any policy in the regional spatial strategy which it thinks is not being implemented; it must cover in its annual report the reasons why; and it must set out what action it intends to take and whether it intends to prepare a draft revision of the regional spatial strategy to change the policy. Because the regional spatial strategy is also central to housing delivery, the regional planning body will also be required to report progress against its housing delivery policy.
	The regional spatial strategy sets out the Secretary of State's spatial policies for the region so, in our view, it is right that the regional planning body should prepare an annual report to the Secretary of State. In that the regional planning body will also be required to make the report publicly available particularly through its website.
	We all know that planning is not a one-off; it is not something that just happens every so often; it is a continuous process. Our view is that it is undermined if those policies are not delivered.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I have tried to restrain myself given the lateness of the hour and the gathering of the Whips. Would the Minister reflect on the fact that one of the reasons that we have a problem with these provisions is that the regional planning body has no executive authority? It does not do anything. The noble Lord is suggesting that this is a way in which to hold it to account for elements of the strategy which are or are not delivered, but the body itself has no powers to deliver any of those things. What it will be doing under the provisions of the Bill is simply to go through a long and onerous task of examining the delivery that has been done by other bodies. It will have to explain, for example, why it is that the Highways Agency has not built a road or why some piece of land has not been brought forward for industrial development.
	The point that we are making is that the Government seem to be asking the regional planning body to give an account of the progress or lack of progress, when it is simply not in its powers to do so. That is why we have such a problem with the measure.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, has a problem with that. However, she seems to have retreated to a position in which we just let things happen in a vacuum, without anyone holding anything together to see exactly where plans, processes and procedures have led us. The noble Baroness makes an acceptable point—which is also, I suppose, fairly obvious—that the regional planning body itself is not an instrument of delivery. However, surely it must be right that we know exactly what is going on. For that reason, we believe that the annual report and review and monitoring process should be put in place.
	I know that Lib Dems have a problem with things being looked at and examined and processes being constant. I am sure that they would like to have things free-floating and airy-fairy; that seems to be within their spirit. However, that does not take us anywhere. We need to ensure that the planning process is ongoing, continuous and understood, and that we can see what comes out of it and what is delivered.
	I suggest that the amendment is actually extremely damaging. As I said at the outset, I am somewhat surprised, given that the opposition parties, which often argue the case for an annual report to ensure that we are being held to account, that things are there on the record and that we do understand what is going on, have done something of a volte-face in this Bill and want to undermine its effect by taking this important system of measurement away from the legislation. I hope that noble Lords opposite will retreat to a position of consistency with all other demands that they make under other forms of legislation, in which the monitoring and review of the process is firmly in place.

Baroness Hamwee: The noble Lord says that he is amused by the amendment. He worries me terribly, and I believe that the mechanism controlling his amusement is badly in need of adjustment. However, that is perhaps not a matter for the Committee.
	Parliament has a duty to scrutinise the acts of the executive and hold them to account. I cannot speak of the amendments to which the noble Lord referred, but that is why opposition parties very often propose the sort of amendment that he mentioned about Secretaries of State making regular reports. We are in a different situation here; there is a distinction.

Lord Hanningfield: We have had an interesting debate on the amendment, and we have noted the response of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. Wearing various hats, I am involved in many annual reports, and I have had several discussions with James Strachan of the Audit Commission, whose motto is, "deregulation, deregulation, deregulation". The Audit Commission is scrapping lots of annual reports of this type—not of the type that reports to Parliament.
	We feel that that report is an onerous piece of bureaucracy to put on these bodies. Of course, they have to report, but the box-ticking of an annual report is not the right way forward. I am sure that we shall return to the matter, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Rooker: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at ten minutes past ten o'clock.